Daleel for doing an action

[Islamic Revival]

As-salam alaikum,

As far as I know, all 'objects' or 'things' are allowed for us in Islam, unless they have been specifically prohibited, eg food, or clothes.

However, it is the other way round for 'actions'. So, when intending to commit a certain action, we need to see the daleel first.

It's this second concept that I need information on (if I have defined it correctly), i.e. where do we get this rule from...which scholar/s have used this rule.

JazakAllah khair in advance.

[maruf]

This is what I have so far. This is in line with my thinking that Allah commands us to refer our actions back to Qur'an and Sunnah in many ayah. So this is a Hukum that Allah directly asks us to perform, I do not think it matters which scholar said so or not.

You are right, we need to make sure all our actions go back to the Qur'an and Sunnah or put another way, a Daleel for our actions.

was-salaam



HUKM SHARII

The text which specifically addresses our actions of what to
do or what not to do is referred to as Hukm Sharii.

The term Hukm Sharii, in Arabic, means the address
of the Legislator related to our actions.

Islam addresses all of our actions, whether they are
permitted or not. Accordingly, all of our actions have
to be guided by the Hukm Sharii.


Allah (SWT) says:


“Whoso rules not according to what Allah has
sent down.... they are the disbelievers.... they are
the wrongdoers...... they are the transgressors.”<br>(TMQ Al-Maidah: 44-47)

æóãóä áøóãú íóÍúßõã ÈöãóÇ ÃóäÒóáó Çááøåõ ÝóÃõæúáóÜÆößó åõãõ ÇáúßóÇÝöÑõæäó<br>æóãóä áøóãú íóÍúßõã ÈöãóÇ ÃäÒóáó Çááøåõ ÝóÃõæúáóÜÆößó åõãõ ÇáÙøóÇáöãõæäó<br>æóãóä áøóãú íóÍúßõã ÈöãóÇ ÃóäÒóáó Çááøåõ ÝóÃõæúáóÜÆößó åõãõ ÇáúÝóÇÓöÞõæäó<br>
33:36 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.


æóãóÇ ßóÇäó áöãõÄúãöäò æóáóÇ ãõÄúãöäóÉò ÅöÐóÇ ÞóÖóì Çááøóåõ æóÑóÓõæáõåõ ÃóãúÑðÇ Ãóä íóßõæäó áóåõãõ ÇáúÎöíóÑóÉõ ãöäú ÃóãúÑöåöãú æóãóä íóÚúÕö Çááøóåó æóÑóÓõæáóåõ ÝóÞóÏú Öóáøó ÖóáóÇáðÇ ãøõÈöíäðÇ<br>




4:65 But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.



ÝóáÇó æóÑóÈøößó áÇó íõÄúãöäõæäó ÍóÊøóìó íõÍóßøöãõæßó ÝöíãóÇ ÔóÌóÑó Èóíúäóåõãú Ëõãøó áÇó íóÌöÏõæÇú Ýöí ÃóäÝõÓöåöãú ÍóÑóÌðÇ ãøöãøóÇ ÞóÖóíúÊó æóíõÓóáøöãõæÇú ÊóÓúáöíãðÇ

[maruf]

Let us continue this conversation if I missed something, insha Allah Islamic Revival.

was-salaam

[maruf]

by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

The third type of knowledge is that of the specific understanding of particular divine commands and prohibitions that make up the shari'a. Here, because of both the nature and the sheer number of the Qur'an and hadith texts involved, people differ in the scholarly capacity to understand and deduce rulings from them. But all of us have been commanded to live them in our lives, in obedience to Allah, and so Muslims are of two types, those who can do this by themselves, and they are the mujtahid Imams; and those who must do so by means of another, that is, by following a mujtahid Imam, in accordance with Allahs word in surat al-Nahl, "Ask those who recall, if you know not" (Qur'an 16:43), and in surat al-Nisa, "If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then those of them whose task it is to find it out would have known the matter" (Qur'an 4:83), in which the phrase those of them whose task it is to find it out, expresses the words "alladhina yastanbitunahu minhum", referring to those possessing the capacity to draw inferences directly from the evidence, which is called in Arabic "istinbat".

These and other verses and hadiths oblige the believer who is not at the level of istinbat or directly deriving rulings from the Qur'an and hadith to ask and follow someone in such rulings who is at this level. It is not difficult to see why Allah has obliged us to ask experts, for if each of us were personally responsible for evaluating all the primary texts relating to each question, a lifetime of study would hardly be enough for it, and one would either have to give up earning a living or give up ones din, which is why Allah says in surat al-Tawba, in the context of jihad:

"Not all of the believers should go to fight. Of every section of them, why does not one part alone go forth, that the rest may gain knowledge of the religion and admonish their people when they return, that perhaps they may take warning" (Qur'an 9:122).

The slogans we hear today about "following the Qur'an and sunna instead of following the madhhabs" are wide of the mark, for everyone agrees that we must follow the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). The point is that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is no longer alive to personally teach us, and everything we have from him, whether the hadith or the Qur'an, has been conveyed to us through Islamic scholars. So it is not a question of whether or not to take our din from scholars, but rather, from which scholars. And this is the reason we have madhhabs in Islam: because the excellence and superiority of the scholarship of the mujtahid Imams--together with the traditional scholars who followed in each of their schools and evaluated and upgraded their work after them--have met the test of scholarly investigation and won the confidence of thinking and practicing Muslims for all the centuries of Islamic greatness. The reason why madhhabs exist, the benefit of them, past, present, and future, is that they furnish thousands of sound, knowledge-based answers to Muslims questions on how to obey Allah. Muslims have realized that to follow a madhhab means to follow a super scholar who not only had a comprehensive knowledge of the Qur'an and hadith texts relating to each issue he gave judgements on, but also lived in an age a millennium closer to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his Companions, when taqwa or "godfearingness" was the norm--both of which conditions are in striking contrast to the scholarship available today.

While the call for a return to the Qur'an and sunna is an attractive slogan, in reality it is a great leap backward, a call to abandon centuries of detailed, case-by-case Islamic scholarship in finding and spelling out the commands of the Qur'an and sunna, a highly sophisticated, interdisciplinary effort by mujtahids, hadith specialists, Qur'anic exegetes, lexicographers, and other masters of the Islamic legal sciences. To abandon the fruits of this research, the Islamic shari'a, for the following of contemporary sheikhs who, despite the claims, are not at the level of their predecessors, is a replacement of something tried and proven for something at best tentative.

The rhetoric of following the shari'a without following a particular madhhab is like a person going down to a car dealer to buy a car, but insisting it not be any known make--neither a Volkswagen nor Rolls- Royce nor Chevrolet--but rather "a car, pure and simple". Such a person does not really know what he wants; the cars on the lot do not come like that, but only in kinds. The salesman may be forgiven a slight smile, and can only point out that sophisticated products come from sophisticated means of production, from factories with a division of labor among those who test, produce, and assemble the many parts of the finished product. It is the nature of such collective human efforts to produce something far better than any of us alone could produce from scratch, even if given a forge and tools, and fifty years, or even a thousand. And so it is with the shari'a, which is more complex than any car because it deals with the universe of human actions and a wide interpretive range of sacred texts. This is why discarding the monumental scholarship of the madhhabs in operationalizing the Qur'an and sunna in order to adopt the understanding of a contemporary sheikh is not just a mistaken opinion. It is scrapping a Mercedes for a go-cart.

[maruf]

This day have I perfected your Deen for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen. (TMQ 5:3)


Çáúíóæúãó ÃóßúãóáúÊõ áóßõãú Ïöíäóßõãú æóÃóÊúãóãúÊõ Úóáóíúßõãú äöÚúãóÊöí æóÑóÖöíÊõ áóßõãõ ÇáÅöÓúáÇóãó ÏöíäðÇ<br>
4:59 O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.


íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇú ÃóØöíÚõæÇú Çááøåó æóÃóØöíÚõæÇú ÇáÑøóÓõæáó æóÃõæúáöí ÇáÃóãúÑö ãöäßõãú ÝóÅöä ÊóäóÇÒóÚúÊõãú Ýöí ÔóíúÁò ÝóÑõÏøõæåõ Åöáóì Çááøåö æóÇáÑøóÓõæáö Åöä ßõäÊõãú ÊõÄúãöäõæäó ÈöÇááøåö æóÇáúíóæúãö ÇáÂÎöÑö Ðóáößó ÎóíúÑñ æóÃóÍúÓóäõ ÊóÃúæöíáÇð


These ayah specifically further clarify this issue of referring all actions back to Allah’s Hukum. From what I have learned, there are many GENERAL VERSES IN THE QUR’AN THAT EXPLICITLY TELL US TO SEEK ALLAH’S OR ISLAAM’S UNDERSTANDING (Laws, rules,) IN ALL OF OUR ACTIONS. So again there is no need of a Scholar to use this rule, the Rule is clearly indicated by Allah.

YOUR QUESTION, AS ALWAYS, WAS A GOOD QUESTION. MAY ALLAH REWARD YOU AGAIN ISLAMIC REVIAL

[Islamic Revival]

However, I can not say that Great Saints such as Imam Ghazali were wrong. Non of us here are anywhere near his Calibre.

Furthermore, instead of scrutinizing the Qur’an and Sunnah and trying to find out “where does it say that we can do that”, why don’t we try look for evidences from the Qura’n and Sunnah where it clearly prohibits going away into seclusion for some time.

Everything in Islam is permissible except which has clearly been declared as Haraam by Allah (swt) and His Rasool.


The above statement is what someone wrote on a discussion forum in response to me saying that meditation (in sufism) is not a part of Islam because it is not in the Quran or Sunnah.

This is why I was asking about the daleel behind actions. Any further input?

[maruf]

However, I can not say that Great Saints such as Imam Ghazali were wrong. Non of us here are anywhere near his Calibre.


My comments:

I do not fully understand his point here.




Furthermore, instead of scrutinizing the Qur’an and Sunnah and trying to find out “where does it say that we can do that”, why don’t we try look for evidences from the Qura’n and Sunnah where it clearly prohibits going away into seclusion for some time.


My comments:

I do not quite understand his point again, especially the last sentence.


Everything in Islam is permissible except which has clearly been declared as Haraam by Allah (swt) and His Rasool.


My comments:

I am not sure what he is stating here. Is it a general principle?

Objects and things as you said, but actions no, we must check before we do based on the explicit text of Qur'an.

This is an interesting point, because does not this come to ijtihad? There are new situations Muslims would encounter as time passes.

Sincere Muslims pondered their actions and sought rulings according to Islaam.



The above statement is what someone wrote on a discussion forum in response to me saying that meditation (in sufism) is not a part of Islam because it is not in the Quran or Sunnah.


My comments:

From what I understand, so I might be wrong, for our Actions we need to always check with What Allah has said on the matter. Now of course some issues are not explicit, so they might require Ijtihad from a Mujtahid. But before any action we must seek the Hukum on it.

objects and things, as you stated are different. Everything is permissible unless stated.

The example I was give is that making a Statue is Haraam, but looking at the object, the Statue is permissible.

When we begin to Do (actions) we need to know that what we may do (action is Halaal, as indicated in the Ayah above)


This is why I was asking about the daleel behind actions. Any further input?


My comments:

The ayah are explicit about us referring our opinions, actions back to Islaam on what we may differ about as human beings.

Before I would buy insurance, or sell real estate, buy a house, etc. I would need to seek a Hukum before I completed these actions for actions can be Haraam in some cases.

I think the issue becomes clearer when we understand that certain things can be Haraam that are not explicitly stated in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Smoking would be a fine example to look at. It is not explicitly stated; however before a Muslim does, he should seek a Hukum on it.



These are my thoughts thus far....I hope it is at least readable, if not clear.

was-salaam

[maruf]

Rules for Adopting Ideas



1. There is a difference between the ideas that relate to the creed and the hukum sharai (legal
judgments) and the ideas that relate to the sciences, the arts, industry and inventions. Ideas that
relate to the creed and sharia should not be adopted except those which were revealed to the
Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) as Quran and Sunnah or what the Quran and Sunnah has
directed to as with Ijma (the general consent of the prophet’s companions) and Qiyas (reasoning by
analogy). Whilst ideas that relate to the sciences, the arts, industry and inventions can be adopted if
they do not object to Islam, this is according to the following evidences:

a. Muslim has narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said "I am a human being like
you, If I give you orders relating to your religion you have to abide by them and if I give you
orders relating to anything of your worldly affairs then I am a human being. (That is, I could make
a mistake.)

b. What was narrated concerning the dusting of the palm trees, the Prophet (peace be upon
him) said, "You are more aware of your worldly affairs."
Thus, anything not relating to the Islamic Sharia that is, the creed and the sharia judgments can be
adopted as long as it does not conflict with Islam. However, if it is related to the Islamic Sharia it
must only be adopted from what was revealed to Mohammad (peace be upon him).

2 The prophet (peace be upon him) has clearly and directly prohibited us to adopt anything
outside of what he has brought us. The evidences of this prohibition is as follows:-
a. Muslim has narrated about Aisha that the prophet (peace be upon him) said "Anything
innovated in our affair (Islam) is rejected."
b. Al Bukhari narrated about Abu Said Al Khudri that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said

"You will follow the laws of the previous nations, span by span and cubit by cubit, even if they
entered the hole of a lizard you will follow them when Abu Said Al Khudri asked the prophet
(peace be upon him) “are they the Jews and Christians?" The prophet answered "Who else?"
All these evidences explicitly prohibit us from taking from other people, and so taking laws and
constitutional articles other than Islam will be subject to this prohibition because it is an innovation
in our (Islamic) affair, moreover an adoption of something other than Islam, following those who
are similar to the Persians and Romans, that is, the English and French who are really, Romans.
Thus, this abstraction is prohibited.

3 In cases where the prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about a judgment not revealed
yet, he would not reply but would wait until the Judgment was revealed to him. The evidences for
this are as follows:-

a. Al Bukhari narrated about Ibn Masoud, who said "The Prophet (peace be upon him) was
asked about the spirit. He kept silent until the verse was revealed. “They will ask concerning the
spirit say: The spirit is by command of my Lord and of knowledge you have been vouchsafed by
little.”<br>
b. Also from Al Bukhari, "Narrated Jabir: The prophet (peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr
came on foot to pay me a visit (during my illness) at Banu Salmals dwellings). The Prophet (peace
be upon him) found me unconscious, so he asked for water and performed the abolution (Wodou)
from it and sprinkled some water over me. I came to my senses and said: “Allah’s Apostle, what
do you order me to do as regards my wealth?” He did not reply till the verse of inheritance was
revealed.

Thus, as the prophet did not express an opinion till a revelation was received, this represents an
evidence that it is prohibited to adopt anything save the revelations

Allah has ordered us to obey the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) to adopt what he ordered
us to and to give up what he prohibited. Allah has also commanded us to arbitrate by him, that is to



2




arbitrate according to what was revealed to him, that is the evidences according to what was
revealed to him. The evidences supporting this are:
a. Allah says: “Whatever the Messenger givesyou, take it, and whatever he forbids you abstain from
it.”<br>
What is implied by this verse has been agreed upon as it is prohibited to take or adopt what he has
not brought to us or not ordered us.
b. Allah says "But no, by the Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make you judge of
what is in dispute between them."
c. Allah has blamed those who go to false deities for Judgment "Have not you seen those who
pretend that they believe in that which is revealed to you, how they would go for judgment (in their
disputes) to false deities when they have been ordered to adjure them. Satan would mislead them
far astray."

The hukum sharai is the statement of the Legislator relating to the conduct of human beings.
Accordingly Muslims are commanded to regulate their conduct with the Legislators statements i.e.
Quran and Sunnah, and if they adopt anything that does not object to the Islamic Sharia then by
inference they have taken something - different than the hukum sharai because they did not follow
the hukum sharai itself, rather they adopted something whcih is not objecting to it. Thus, their
adoption of something that does not object to the hukum sharai is a departure from the hukum
sharai.

Even if someone adopts something which agrees with the hukum sharai but is not from Quran and
Sunnah, this adoption is prohibited because it is not an adoption of the hukum sharai. It is an
adoption of a judgment different than the hukum sharai, though agreeing with it. Hence, adoption
is not an arbitration of What the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) has brought to us, but an
arbitration of something different, although it agrees with Sharia . For example, the sharai (legal)
marriage consists of an offer and an acceptance pronounced as words of marriage in the presence of
two Muslim witnesses. If a Muslim man and woman went to a church and a priest conducted the
marriage bond according to the Christian System with words of marriage pronounced in the
presence of two Muslim witnesses, their marriage would not be sharai, because they have followed
in their conduct; the Misconstructed Bible. Also, if a Christian has died and his relatives have
distributed his wealth according to Islamic law, as it is just and fair, and have produced a relevant
document from a legal (sharai) court, they have not arbitrated to Islam as Islam but merely because
it is a just system only.


One should not follow the hukum sharai because it is useful, just and fair, but because the
Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) has brought it and has ordered us to abide by it.
The Prophet's acceptance of preIslamic contracts was made by him as a Prophet, and the prophet's
consent is a legislation as is his speech and conduct; moreover this consent is not permitted to him
except as a prophet. Anything the Prophet said, enacted or consented is a revelation from Allah.

Thus, Pagan contracts which the Prophet (peace be upon him) has accepted are hukum sharai, even
if they were pagan contracts before. This is because the prophet’s acceptance of them changed
them to legal even if they were traditions, when the Muslims followed such contracts on traditions
after this they followed them as hukum sharai not as pagan contracts by any means. There are
examples which demonstrate that the prophets companions understood his consent was a sharai
evidence, for example, when the Muslims had ate a lizard in a meal in the presence of the Prophet
(peace be upon him), his companions interpreted this as a permission for them to eat it even though
the prophet (peace be upon him) ate nothing of it.


Al-Fajr Magazine, September 1985

[maruf]

As-salaamu'alaykum!

It is pretty late where I am...but I happened to be doing a little reading and came across this paper.

It further explains the difference between actions and objects along with some other Usul principles.

Enjoy! May Allah benefit someone with this post.


Was-salaam





The understanding of Principles – Qaid’a


Today, the Muslim world is characterised by people who advocate many ideas, principles and opinions. Many of these principles have no basis in Islam, and indeed some even contradict Islam. For example, many Muslims utilise principles like choose the lesser of two evils and the change of rules can occur due to the change of time and place. In order to help explain why these principles are not valid, it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of how these principles came about, and what Islamic evidences are twisted to support these principles.

Others, utilise well-known Islamic principles like that which is necessary to accomplish a wajib, is itself a wajib and every action requires an evidence. Equally, it is important for the Muslims to understand why these principles are valid, and what Islamic evidences they are based upon.

Principles, or Qaid’a, are legal statements derived from the legislative sources (Qur’an & Sunnah) which are generally applicable on actions and objects. Qaid’a, are very helpful when it comes to the process of issuing a hukm, and they often have many applications.

That which is necessary to accomplish a wajib, is itself a wajib

In Usool-ul-Fiqh, a very well-known Islamic principle is that which is necessary to accomplish a wajib, is itself a wajib. This principle is used extensively and has many practical applications. For example, we know that without having an Islamic State many of the Islamic obligations that stem from cutting the hand of the thief to the protection of our Ummah against her enemies remain unfulfilled.

Consequently, because the implementation of each of these individual actions is fardh, and they can only be collectively implemented by the Islamic Khilafah, then the Khilafah is also fardh, by the principle that which is necessary to accomplish a wajib, is itself a wajib. This idea is very eloquently stated by Ibn Taymiyyah, who said there is no Islam without Khilafah (As-Siyasa as-Shariyah).

Other applications of this principle also extend to the salat. For example, we know that to pray Isha is fardh. This obligation can only be performed if the Muslim has wudu (i.e. Isha is conditional upon having wudu, as a general rule). Therefore, wudu in this case is also fardh, by the principle that which is necessary to accomplish a wajib, is itself a wajib.

This principle is also extensively employed when it comes to the subject matter of the Islamic method to re-establish the Khilafah. Since the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah is conclusively proven to be fardh by many Islamic evidences, then any action necessary to achieve this objective also becomes fardh.

Consequently, establishing a political party, like Hizb ut-Tahrir, with the necessary ideological and political culture, then becomes fardh, because the work to re-establish the Khilafah cannot be achieved by individuals working alone. Therefore, whatever is necessary to achieve the fardh of the re-establishment of the Khilafah, also becomes fardh (i.e. political parties are fardh).

Given the importance of this principle, we need to have an appreciation of what evidences this principle is built upon. Islamic principles depend upon a multitude of evidences, from which a general principle is defined.

For example, the obligation for Jihad is mentioned in many ayah, without mentioning any specific form of preparation, but the preparatory phase is obligatory because of the ayah:

And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war to threaten the enemy of Allah (swt) and your enemy, and others besides whom you may not know, but whom Allah (swt) does know.
[TMQ Al-Anfal: 60]

From this ayah, although we see that the ayah did not mention the specific details of preparation, anything needed to perform Jihad, which is fardh, effectively then also becomes fardh. Consequently, military training, military institutions and heavy industry would all fall under this preparation, and they would all be fardh, because Jihad cannot be effective without these.

So this ayah is one of the many evidences that the principle, that which is necessary to accomplish a wajib, is itself a wajib, is based upon. Another evidence to support this principle comes from the Sunnah. It has been authentically narrated by Imam An Nawawi that the Prophet (saw) said in one hadith:

Whatever I order you to do, then do of it as much as you can.

From this hadith, we are required to undertake all obligations according to the utmost of our ability. So for example, if there is no water in your room, this does not mean that if you are required to make wudu for salat, you do not undertake to go to the bathroom. On the contrary, if you are able to go to the bathroom, then you must undertake all the actions required so that you can perform your obligations, as much as you can, as the hadith says (whatever I order you to do, then do of it as much as you can). Hence, part of the order of the fardh is to do all that is required to undertake the fardh. Imam Ghazali in his Mustapha says that this is something agreed upon. For example, it is wajib to wash the elbows in wudu. But in order to make sure your elbows are washed, you must wash a bit further than the elbow. Therefore, washing slightly above the elbows is also fardh. Also it is wajib to fast the day from dawn to sunset in Ramadhan. But in order to make sure you have fasted the whole day, you must fast a little of the night after Magrib (1 minute after Maghrib for example). Therefore fasting a little over Maghrib also becomes fardh.

All of these evidences and applications show the basis and practicality of this principle.

The initial rule is that an object or a thing is permissible unless stated otherwise

Another well-known Islamic qaid’a is related to objects. It states that the initial rule is that an object or a thing is permissible unless stated otherwise. In other words, everything is permissible, unless there is an evidence for prohibition; or all things are halal, except those that are haram.

This principle is established from many ayah in the Qur’an:

And he has created for you everything in the Heavens and in the Earth. [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 29]
See you not, O men, that Allah (swt) has subjected for you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth and has completed and perfected His graces upon you…
[TMQ Al-Luqman: 20]

Eat that which is in the Earth, as halal and good.
[TMQ Al-Baqarah: 168]

These and many other similar general ayah, lead to the conclusion that Allah (swt) (swt) has made everything halal and it does not required a specific evidence because it is covered by the general rule of permissibility. Based on these evidences, we arrive at the principle, that the initial rule is that an object or a thing is permissible unless stated otherwise.

Therefore, if the mujtahid wanted to derive a legal rule on a fruit that was not known to be eaten at the time of the Prophet (saw), such as kiwi fruit or guava, the mujtahid would refer to this qaid’a and realise that due to the absence of an evidence prohibiting these fruits, they are therefore permissible.

However, from this wide circulation of permissible objects there are certain prohibitions that also come from the detailed evidences:

Forbidden to you are: dead animals, blood, swine, the meat of that which has been slaughtered for others than Allah (swt)…<br>[TMQ Al-Ma’ida: 3]

This ayah as well as others excludes certain things from the pervious ayah which made everything permissible. Therefore, the prohibition of things like carrion, pork, the fallen animal and predators, or the prohibition of wine, have all come as a result of specific evidences for their prohibition, and are exceptions to the general rule of things, which is permissible.

If the mujtahid wanted to issue a verdict on any drink containing alcohol, then the mujtahid would refer to this qaid’a and find many evidences prohibiting any use of alcohol. Thus alcohol as an object is completely forbidden.

The above mentioned principle addressed objects only, not actions. The adherence to this principle contributed towards a very high level of material progress during the history of the Khilafah, as it rendered all objects at its disposal. Today, we find many Muslims thinking that things made in the West, like the internet, television, videos, cameras, etc are prohibited, not realising that Allah (swt) (swt) made all these things permissible in origin, unless an evidence prohibits that thing.

The initial rule is that actions are neither permissible nor prohibited. Each action requires a daleel

A third Islamic principle address human action. It states that the initial rule is that actions are neither permissible nor prohibited. Each action requires a daleel. In other words, every action requires an evidence. This is a valid qaid’a derived from the legislative sources and supported by several daleel:

By your Lord, We shall certainly call all of them to account. For all they used to do. [TMQ Al-Hijr: 92-93]

[maruf]

continued

Whatever you maybe doing, and whatever portion you may be reciting from the Qur’an and whatever deed you mankind maybe doing (good or evil), We are Witness thereof, when you are doing it. And nothing is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on the earth or in the heaven. Nor what is less than that or what is greater than that but is written in a Clear Record. [TMQ Al-Yunus: 61]

Whatever the Messenger gives you take it. And whatever he forbids you abstain from it. [TMQ Al-Hashar: 7]

Every atom’s weight of good you do you will see, and every atom’s weight of bad you do you will see. [TMQ Al-Zal Zala: 7-8]

Also, another evidence to support this principle comes from the Sunnah. The Prophet (saw) said:

He who does an action not from us then he is not part of us.

These and many other ayah and hadith indicate a vital issue: Allah (swt) (swt) will question every action, and every person will be held responsible for their actions. This being the case, then every Muslim before performing an action needs to know the Islamic verdict before performing it, otherwise, he may inadvertently perform an action that will lead him to the hell-fire. May Allah (swt) (swt) protect us all from this.

There is a lot of confusion amongst Muslims over these 2 principles. The Principle of Things states that everything is permitted, except that which is expressly prohibited. The Principle of Actions states that every action needs an Islamic evidence. Muslims often confuse these 2 principles, and mix them up. Consequently, we hear people saying that all actions are allowed unless otherwise restricted by the detailed evidences. Therefore, having over 56 different Muslim countries is allowed, because they are not expressly prohibited. The difference between these 2 principles, as well as their inter-relationship can be best illustrated using 3 objects: sword, khamr (alcohol) and pure silk.

Swords are permissible in Islam, by the principle that everything is permitted, except that which is expressly prohibited. However, what Islam restricts is the way it is utilised. For instance, the act of using a sword against Muslims, with the exception of implementing the Islamic punishments, is considered haram, whilst the act of using a sword in Jihad is rewarded. In both cases, the sword as an object remains permissible, but the nature of the intention behind the action differs. So the permissibility to use an object does not necessarily mean that all actions associated with the object are permissible.

Khamr is of the few objects which Islam prohibits. The Prophet (saw) prohibited Muslims from all acts related to alcohol, such as buying, selling, manufacturing, handling or receiving the price of alcohol. Generally, if an object is haram, then all acts associated with it are haram as well. Any exception to this rule must have a daleel that states that exception, like the case of eating pork because of necessity.

Pure silk, as an object is permissible because everything is permitted, except that which is expressly prohibited. Islam prohibits only the act of wearing by Muslim men, other than in cases of Shari’ah exemptions. Islam, however, allowed men to buy, sell, trade and manufacture pure silk. So if an object is permissible it does not necessarily mean all actions related to it are allowed. As in this case, the wearing of silk by Muslim men is prohibited.

The above 3 examples illustrate the differences between the 2 principles. They are distinct because they address different issues. One address things, whereas the other addresses human actions. The Principle of Things renders all objects as permissible (except those that are prohibited), whereas the Principle of Actions controls how these objects are used, by requiring an Islamic evidence for our actions.

The progress in the Khilafah is achieved by adhering to these principles, and we saw in history how the Islamic world were the leaders in technology, medicine, agriculture, mathematics, geography and naval sciences. So in order for the Muslims to once again become the leaders of the world, there is a need to base our lives on these Islamic principles.

One of the reasons why the Muslims declined was due to the decline in understanding Islamic ideas and concepts. This decline in understanding the Islamic thought resulted in the appearance of many principles with very weak daleel, or in most cases, no daleel whatsoever.

The change of rules can occur due to the change of time and place

One such invalid principle is that the change of rules can occur due to the change of time and place. In other words, the Shar’iah can change over time due to changes in technology, science, geography and progress.

The proponents of this principle, cite many incidents to support their erroneous view. For example, they mention the incident of how Imam Shafi completely changed his fiqh when he moved to Egypt. And they relate this as an example why we can change the rules of Islam due to the change of place. They also quote how the Sahabah (raa) changed some rulings of the Prophet (saw). For example, if the camel was misguided the Prophet (saw) recommended to leave it because it will find its own way. On the other hand, Umar (ra) asked the people to bring the lost camels to the Islamic State, where the camels can be kept for the owners to claim them. And they relate this as an example why we can change the rules of Islam due to the change of time.

Other often quoted examples are when Umar (ra) suspended the cutting of the hands of the thief, and whipping the drunkard 80 times instead of 40 times. Other scholars went as far as to say that the Jizyah can be cancelled because in the past the non-Muslims didn’t participate in the Muslim army, but now they are participating in the army and defending the land; therefore, they no longer have to pay Jizyah.

Others, went even further. They expressed that the unity of the Muslim Ummah is not a vital issue, or a decisive obligation. They developed this thinking by saying that 56+ states exist because life is more complicated than the times of the desert arabs. Therefore, they arrive at the conclusion that we are no longer in need of the Khilafah, because rules are subject to change, due to the change of time and place.

To discuss these issues, and show how they are not understood correctly, we first need to understand the distinction between dynamism and flexibility.

Flexibility is built on pragmatism. This means that when different realities present themselves, the people who believe that the Islamic rules are flexible, will change these rules to fit with the reality. We know many Muslims think like this. For example, people accept mortgages in this country using this understanding. Clearly, there is no room for flexibility in Islam, as we have defined it.
Dynamism, on the other hand, is something radically different. Dynamism in Islam is understood by ijtihaad. In other words, dynamism in Islam is when the qualified scholar, applies the Islamic evidences to the reality in order to arrive at a hukm.

For example, we can relate the complicated subject of human cloning to the Islamic evidences to arrive at the Islamic rule.
This is an excellent example of illustrating how to relate everything to Islam, and how Islam is relevant to such modern, state-of-the-art discoveries.

[maruf]

and finally


The reasons why human cloning is haram are because:

1. The production of children in this manner is different from the natural way that Allah (swt) has made humans to reproduce their offspring: And that He (Allah (swt)) created the pairs, male and female. From nutfah when it is emitted. [TMQ An-Najm: 45-46]
2. The children who are born out of cloning females, without a male, have no fathers: Call them by the names of their fathers, that is more just in the sight of Allah (swt). [TMQ Al-Azhab: 5]
3. Loss of kinship.
4. Many of the Islamic rules regarding inheritance, fatherhood, motherhood, sonship, custody, maharim and marriage become prevented from being applied.

The example of cloning demonstrates how practical it is to apply Islam to modern day problems. To say that the change of rules can occur due to the change of time and place, implies that Allah (swt) (swt) was not aware about cloning, and contradicts the ayah of Qu’ran where Allah (swt) says: He has left nothing out of the Book.

It is important to understand that the principle that the change of rules can occur due to the change of time and place, indeed has no value in Islam. We must understand that Islam came to organise man’s life with all its intricacies. We must understand, that the physical make-up of man has not changed at all, and can never change. What changes over time are the tools, technology and means that man uses to satisfy his needs. For example, man can eat either by hand, spoon or sticks, but nevertheless he has to eat. The only thing that has changed is the method of satisfying the need. Islam was revealed to organise man’s basic instincts and organic needs. The rules for this regulation cannot be changed. But as new problems arise, we need new rules. We obtain new rules by the dynamic process of ijtihaad.

Let us now very quickly review some the evidences that people use to support the principle that the change of rules can occur due to the change of time and place.

When Umar (ra) stopped cutting the hand of the thief during a famine, he made a valid Islamic judgement based upon a daleel. Before cutting the hand, the person’s basic needs must be met. Since the basic needs are not fulfilled during a famine, then the Islamic punishments cannot be applied. So, when Umar (ra) suspended the hudood, it was not because the change of a rule occurred due to a change of time and place, but because the Islamic conditions for the implementation of the rule were not present.

Moreover, the idea that Imam Shafi changed his fiqh because of a change of place has no basis. Imam Shafi changed his usool because he realised that his old usool was not correct, and such a change led to a change in his fiqh.
The Khaleefah has the responsibility for taking care of the Ummah’s affair in the best possible way. This may change from time to time. For example, Umar (ra) asked the people to bring the lost camel to the State authority, while the Prophet (saw) said to leave the camel and it will find it’s owner. During the days of Umar (ra) the State was growing and someone had to take care of this matter. Since the Khaleefah is the caretaker of the Ummah, Umar (ra) asked the people to bring the camel to the State. We know from Islam, that the Khaleefah has the divine right to adopt as many rules, as are problems, and that obedience to him, openly and secretly is an obligation, as long as he implements Islam.

When Umar (ra) increased the whipping of the drunkard from 40 to 80, he was issuing a judgement in his capacity as a Judge (Qadi). His ruling was not part of the hudood, it was in fact taa’zeer, where the Judge is allowed to pronounce the judgement that he thinks fits the crime.

The principle, the change of rules can occur due to the change of time and place, has no place in Islam. It has penetrated our minds due to the influence of kufr ideologies like Capitalism and Communism. What we have failed to realise is the difference between these ideologies and Islam.

In Capitalism, the people are sovereign, and the decision of what is right and wrong rests with human beings. As the circumstances and the conditions change, the thoughts and viewpoints of the people change, which directly results in a change in the standards of right and wrong. In the dead idea of Communism, which was based on the rotten idea of dialectics, it was stated that things are in constant evolution and change. In Islam, Allah (swt) (swt) revealed His Shari’ah to all humanity, for all times and places, and His laws are applicable and relevant until the Day of Judgement.

Because the Islamic rules emanate from the Creator whose Knowledge is all-encompassing, then the system that stems from these laws does not need to be changed, updated or revised to adapt to new circumstances. The divine texts of Islam should not be viewed as any writing like that of Marx or Adam Smith which is subject to the need for change, with the change in time and place.

Choose the lesser of two evils

Another rotten principle expounded by many Muslims is to choose the lesser of two evils. This is a very deviant understanding and has no valid Islamic basis whatsoever.

An often quoted evidence to support this principle is the incident that occurred at the nomination of Uthman (ra) as Khalif. It has been reported that ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Awf (ra) after having consulted the people individually and collectively, openly and secretly, that he gathered the people in the Mosque, ascended the minbar and made a long dua. He then called Ali (ra) and took hold of his hand and said: “Do you pledge to me that you will act / rule according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra)?” Ali (ra) replied: “I pledge to you on the basis of the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) but I will exercise my own ijtihaad.” So ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Awf (ra) let go of his hand and called for Uthman (ra) and said to him: “Do you pledge to me that you will act / rule according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra)?” Uthman (ra) said: “By Allah (swt), yes!” So ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Awf (ra) raised his head towards the roof of the Mosque, his hand in Uthman’s (ra) hand and said 3 times: “O Allah (swt), hear and bear witness! I hear and bear witness!” Then he gave him the pledge and the people thronged to the Mosque to give the ba’yah making Ali (ra) having to push his way through the people until he gave his pledge to Uthman (ra) also.

Proponents of choose the lesser of two evils maintain that at this time, the Ummah was presented with 2 evils, namely having no Khaleef, and Uthman (ra) maintaining his opinions. Therefore, they say that Uthman (ra) choose the lesser of the two evils by leaving his own opinions in order to preserve unity.

It is wrong to derive the principle of choose the lesser of two evils from this incident because evils is equivalent to haram, and it was not haram for Imam Ali (ra) to stick to his own ijtihaad, and it was not fardh for Uthman (ra) to leave his own opinions for Abu Bakr’s (ra) opinion and Umar’s (ra) opinion, rather it was mubah for Uthman (ra) to leave his opinion.

Another refutation of this principle would be to ask the question that when did the Prophet (saw) ever commit an evil / haram when presented with two evils? Indeed, the Seerah is full of examples where the Prophet (saw) could have chosen the lesser of two evils, but he (saw) did not. For example, when he (saw) was looking for nussrah he did not accept the nussrah from Banu Aamir, in the knowledge that he (saw) and his Sahabah (raa) were being heavily tortured in Mecca, because Banu Aamir attached conditions to their support.

Also, how do people outweigh the lesser of two evils? How is one haram less than another haram? Indeed, we should stay away from all that Allah (swt) (swt) has made haram.

People who use this principle to justify the partial implementation of Islam, by maintaining that countries like Saudi Arabia and Sudan are at least implementing some rules from Islam, and this is better than a situation where no rules of Islam are being implemented, should be cautioned that this is an invalid principle and therefore has no applicability.

These ideas and principles are alien to Islam, and keep the Muslims away from Islam. It is our duty to explain to our Ummah the erroneous nature of these alien principles, and to demonstrate the correctness and practicality of the valid Islamic principles, that we discussed at the beginning of this article. We pray to Allah (swt) (swt) that He (swt) enables us to once again practically live by these principles, by seeing them applied in real life under the Khilafah. Ameen.

[Bint Mohammed]

Walakumsalaam

In addtion to this, I would say this is Qaidah dervied from the evidence in An-nisa 65 and many others. However there has been since the history of Islam ikhtilaaf on this principle. Where jurists do not differntiate between objects and actions and follow the priciple 'All things and actions are permitted in origin until text prohibits them' which basically means everything that has not been specificaly prohibited by Allah is permissable. This principle than forms the basis of Usooli concept of Istihsab.. Such an understanding would be one way of explaining the actions of despot regimes that are concerned only with 'islamazing' that laws contained in the books of jurists since they orginate from Quran and Sunah. Thses govts leave rest of the laws untouched since they cannot find rules for them in Quran and sunnah. We also find many jurists from our times asserting this rule in suport of permissabilty of modern activities for which hukm may be needed such as complex business transations or Riba. SO we can see the dangers of following this type of ruling.

The correct principle would be that 'Original rule for all actions is prohibition unless the shariah permitts it' . The principle is likely to ensure that a hukm will be found for each activity, and permission and prohibition will proceed from the principles of islamci law. This is what all jurists have done in practice including the Shafi, and Hanafi. For example As-Suyuti hold this view and borrows this from Imam alharaymain al-Juwayni.

This priciple or approach guarantees complete isalamisation of all laws, and makes the phrase 'Islam is a complete way of life' more meaningful.

[Islamic Revival]

Many instances we hear statements such as ''what does Islam say about computers'' or ''where in Islam does it mention the internet,'' all of which are tantamount to mocking the notion that Islam is complete. Such statements are reflective of a confused mentality that fails to distinguish between the actions of human beings, and the objects and tools that may or may not be associated with our actions. Understanding the distinction between actions and objects is needed to eliminate this confusion.

Actions

When we look to the human being, the life of the human being can essentially be said to consist of all the thoughts that he adopts and all the actions he carries out. Therefore, when we say that Islam is a ''complete way of life,'' Islam provides a system of thoughts that answers all of the fundamental questions needed for the human being to proceed through life and provides the human being with a comprehensive outlook. In addition, Islam provides a comprehensive system of life from which emanates solutions to all issues that human beings may face related to the life affairs as well as rules and regulations that address all the actions that the human being carries out. In this regard, the completeness of Islam is realized.

The evidence that establishes that Islam is complete are two. First, Allah (swt) affirms in the Qur'an that Islam is complete in the following ayahs:

''It (the Qur'an) is not a forged statement, but a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of everything.'' [Yusuf: 111]

''And We have revealed the Book unto you explaining all matters'' [An-Nahl: 89]

Secondly, Allah (swt) states in the Qur'an that He will hold us accountable for everything that we do, meaning that we will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment for every action that we take and every belief that we decide to adopt. Therefore, Allah (swt) must provide an Islamic answer for every action that we take and every belief that we adopt in order for a fair judgment to take place on the Day of Judgment. If Islam is not complete (meaning that there are actions, issues, problems, or beliefs for which Islam did not provide an answer), then this means that Allah (swt) will judge us for things that He did not provide an answer for, which will imply that Allah (swt) is not just. Such a deficiency cannot be attributed to Allah the All-Mighty.

When it comes to our actions and the problems and issues we face as human beings, we must refer exclusively to Islam, feeling content that Islam is complete enough to supply an answer for all of our problems in life and a rule for every action that we do. Thus, every action that we carry out must have an evidence from the Islamic legislative sources.

Two questions may arise. First, one may ask, what about issues and problems in science and technology? Secondly, what about general actions of the human being such as seeing, walking, eating, and talking? To answer the first question, we must realize that Islam is complete inasmuch as it addresses the human being in a comprehensive manner. The subject matter of Islam is the human being and not science and technology. Therefore, Islam will address the thoughts and actions of the human being and provide solutions to the issues that human beings face, regardless of the level of science and technology that exist. By doing so, Islam retains its relevance because, while science and technology always change, the human being does not change. Human beings two thousand years ago possess the same instincts and needs as the human beings today, and this situation will remain unchanged for human beings two thousand years in the future. Regardless of the age, all human beings possessed sexual desire, the need to get married and have families, the need to acquire and own wealth, the need to get educated and participate in politics, and the need to live under justice and security. Similarly, all societies must have an economic system to deal with the distribution of wealth, a judicial system to settle disputes, an educational system to cultivate certain ideas and values, a social system to organize the relations between man and woman, a political system to implement the other systems, and a system for dealing with other societies and nations - regardless of the level of science and technology. And Islam came to deal with the problems and issues that stem from the human being with his instincts and needs, as well as the problems and issues that stem from the complex relationships that exist in any society.

Also, science and technology are universal, meaning that they are not unique to a specific outlook on life. Science is the process of discovering the natural universe that Allah (swt) created, and technology is the process of utilizing science in order to build tools, machines, and objects to fulfill a specific function. The requirements to be a competent scientist will not be decided by the belief system of the individual or what way of life he submits to, but rather his ability to setup and conduct an experiment and to operate whatever instruments are needed to perform the desired measurements. Similarly, competency in engineering or programming necessitates for one to understand the principles of engineering, mathematics, and computers, not for one to be an Atheist, Christian, Muslim, or Capitalist. Therefore, the ever-changing fields of science and technology have no bearing on the applicability or relevance of Islam because the scope of Islam does not include such fields to start with. Allah (swt) gave the human being the full authority to explore the natural universe which He created and to utilize this understanding to build whatever machines, tools, and structures are needed to enhance the quality of life.

As for addressing the second question, Islam did not come to address the natural human actions that Allah (swt) endowed all human beings with. We do not need a permission to look, speak, walk, eat, and drink per se because such actions are part of the makeup of the human being. Thus, the general rule in Islam is that such actions are permitted, with the exception of those specific actions that are mentioned explicitly in the text. Thus, we are allowed to look, but we cannot look at the private parts of someone, unless there is an exception that is mentioned in the text (such as a doctor examining a patient for medical reasons). Also, we are allowed to talk, but we are not permitted to say anything that insults or degrades Islam or any aspect of the Islamic belief, nor are we allowed to verbally abuse other Muslims or our parents. In all of these instances, there is a text that specifically prohibit these actions.


Objects

In contrast to actions, where every action must have an Islamic evidence, the rule for objects is different. For objects and things, the general rule is that all objects and things are permissible, with the exception of those items that are specifically mentioned in the text. Thus, alcohol, pork, and intoxicating drugs are prohibited for consumption because there exists a text that specifically prohibits the consumption of these items.

The evidence that allows objects and things is the ayahs in the Qur'an which state that Allah (swt) has created the universe and everything within it for our disposal. Thus, in the example of foodstuff and drink, we do not require an evidence that permits fish, beef, vegetable, fruits, nuts, water, juice, and every single consumable item. Rather, the evidence that establishes the permissibility of all of these foodstuffs is the general rule derived from the ayahs in which Allah (swt) says that He created everything for our utilization.

With this understanding, the issue of computers, internet, automobiles, fax, and all other objects and things is decisively resolved. By issuing a general rule permitting all objects and exempting only a few items (such as pork for consumption and wearing gold for men), Islam saves us from being needlessly overburdened. The realm of the permissible (mubah) is by far the widest; by comparison, very few objects and items are haram. And as a result, this will shift the focus of our attention upon the ACTIONS that we carry out and not on the OBJECTS, TOOLS, AND ITEMS that we may or may not utilize to carry out our actions and resolve our problems and issues. In this context, one will notice that, because Islam was sent to address the human being, the focus of the Islamic message is upon the actions, thoughts, values, and issues that face the human being and not on the objects, tools, and things. Thus, Islam directs the human being to utilize his thinking process in a profound manner to arrive at the truthfulness of the Islamic Aqeedah while denouncing the notions of building belief based on ''faith,'' imitation of others, emotions, and speculation - WITHOUT giving any regard as to whether the people live in huts in a village or in cities laced with skyscrapers or in outer space.

The focus of the Islamic message is the human being, and hence Islam works to shape the thinking of the human being and regulate his behavior by governing his actions. What structure the human being resides in, his mode of transportation, the tools that he utilizes for communication, the weapons that he uses in war, are not the issue in Islam. The act of killing for an unjust cause is prohibited, whether the killing is done with swords and arrows or with B-2 fighter jets and artillery. The act of cheating others is not allowed, whether the act involves a wealthy merchant cheating poor villagers or the IMF and World Bank cheating the Third World. Cutting the hand of the thief is an obligation, whether the thief's hand is cut with a sword or with a laser. The act of promoting Kufr ideas and values is prohibited, regardless of whether such ideas and concepts are promoted by word of mouth or through the internet and mass media. The act of ruling by Islam and implementing the Islamic system is an obligation, whether the society is composed of villages in the desert or cities laced with skyscrapers or bubble colonies on the moon.

In conclusion, we must maintain the understanding of how Islam deals with the actions, thoughts, and issues related to the human being on the one hand, and how Islam views the objects, tools, and things that may or may not be associated with our actions and thoughts. More importantly, this comes in the context of understanding what the scope of Islam (the human being - his thoughts, actions, issues, and problems) is and what is outside this scope (such as science and technology). When this understanding is clear, we can safely dismiss such questions as ''where in Islam is there any mention of computers'' and ''where in Islam does it mention space exploration'' as utter nonsense.