It is stated as
follows in the book entitled Berîqa, in its section dealing with disasters incurred by way of
stomach: “Things that are harâm to eat and drink are as follows:
“1- Things that are
called harâm-i-li-’aynihî
and
which are harâm themselves. Examples of them are lesh, (i.e. flesh of animals
that have died of themselves or which have been killed in a way not prescribed
by Islam,) pork, and wine. If a certain liquid would intoxicate a person who
drank plenty of it, it is harâm to drink even a small amount of it. With the exception
of a person in a state of mahmasa, i.e. about to die of hunger, and a person
under ikrâh (duress), i.e. being intimidated with the threat that he will be
killed, these things are harâm to eat and drink.
“2- Things that are
not harâm themselves but which have been obtained by way of extortion, theft,
or bribery, (in any of which three cases the things obtained will be harâm,)
even if they have been obtained from disbelievers in the Dâr-ul-harb, or which
have been bought, even though from disbelievers in the Dâr-ul-islâm, by
way of a bargain that has been made in defiance of the rules
(set by Islam) and which therefore is called ‘fâsid’, (and which is explained
in detail in the thirty-first chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.) Something obtained
or bought in one of the aforesaid ways will become the property of the person
who has obtained or bought it; yet it is his mulk-i-khabîth; it is harâm for
him to use it. It is necessary to give it back to its previous owner; if that
person cannot be found, it should be given as alms to poor people.
“3- It is harâm to eat
after being satiated.
“4- To eat harmful
things such as soil and mud.
“5- Poisonous things.
Food affected by verdigris or mixed with poison, poisonous grass, putrid meat,
maggotty meat or fruit or cheese are a few examples.
“6- Narcotic and
addictive substances. Hashish, opium, morphine, and benzine are in this group.
It is permissible to use them for medicinal purposes and in amounts prescribed
by a doctor.
“7- Najâsat. In this
group are urine, blood that goes out of a blood vessel, and faeces.
“8- Things that are
clean but disgusting. A few examples are mucus, frogs (or toads), flies, crabs,
and oysters.”
As is stated in the
two hundred and fifteenth (215) page of the fifth volume of the book entitled Radd-ul-muhtâr, it is farz to eat
food enough to appease one’s hunger and to clothe oneself sufficiently enough
to cover one’s awrat parts[1] and to protect oneself against cold and heat. These things are
termed nafaqa. (Please see the
eighth chapter!) It is farz also to work to earn the money to spend for nafaqa.
If a person cannot find a halâl way to earn his nafaqa and there is fear of
death, he may obtain it also from sources that are harâm. He may drink wine, or
urine in absence of wine, just enough to survive on, lest he should die of
thirst. And he may eat lesh or food that belongs to someone else only enough to
stay alive. [Please see the thirty-first chapter of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss!] It is stated as
follows in the books entitled Bezzâziyya, (by Ibn-ul-Bezzâz Muhammad bin Muhammad Kerderî, d. 827 [1424
A.D.],) and Khulâsa-t-ul-fatâwâ, (by Tâhir Bukhârî:) “Supposing a person is hungry and cannot
even find some lesh to eat, and someone says to him, ‘Cut a part of flesh off
my arm and eat it;’ it will not be permissible for the former to do so. For,
human flesh is not halâl even in case of a darűrat.”
---------------------------------
[1] Please see the eighth chapter of the fourth
fascicle of Endless Bliss.
[It should not be concluded from these
statements that blood transfusion or human organ transplant to a person in
danger of death is not permissible. What these statements interdict is to eat
human flesh. Shaikh Tâhir-uz-Zâwî, Muftî of Libya, states as follows in his
fatwâ announced in the second issue of the year 1397 Hijrî and 1973 of the
Majalla entitled Al-Hedy-ul-islâmî, published by the administration of Awqaf under the Libyan
government: “It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf that Allâhu ta’âlâ has created a medicine
for each and every illness. Another hadîth-i-sherîf reads: ‘O you, the born-slaves of
Allâhu ta’âlâ! When you become ill get treatment! For, when Allâhu ta’âlâ sends an illness, He
sends medicine for it as well.’ Our blessed Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ has shown various ways of
treatment, e.g. quarantining the patients, following a diet, cleansing, etc. It
is farz-i-kifâya[1] to learn medicine and to engage in medical treatments. Medical
knowledge takes priority over religious knowledge. It is permissible to
transplant the heart or any other organ of a newly dead person to someone else.
This practice should not be considered as an insult to the dead person. A
Muslim has to protect not only himself, but his Muslim brothers and sisters as
well. It is for that matter that it is farz to confront the attacking enemy and
to make jihâd. It is easier for a living or dead person to give one of its
organs to a living person than it is for a living person to give his life.
There is many a prohibition that turns into a permission (mubâh) when there is
a darűrat. (Please see the fourth chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss for ‘darűrat’.) It is
harâm to cut off any organ of a corpse. It is wâjib to respect a person,
equally after death. Existence of a darűrat, however, countermands the state of
harâm. When specialized Muslim doctors state that a certain patient’s recovery
is dependent only on blood transfusion or organ transplant and there is no
other way to save him or her from death, it will be permissible to apply it.
Religious discrimination is unthinkable.”] The author of the book entitled Eshbâh, (i.e. Zayn-al’âbidîn
bin Ibrâhîm ibni Nujaym-i-Misrî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 926 – 970 [1562
A.D.], Egypt,) states in its hundred and twenty-third (123) page: “When it is
hoped that the baby (alive in
---------------------------------
[1]
When a certain commandment of Allâhu ta’âlâ is definite and clearly
understood, it is (a) farz (or fardh). When a farz is meant for
every individual Muslim, it is (a) farz-i-’ayn. When it
is meant for a group of Muslims, it is (a) farz-i-kifâya. When
one of the Muslims in the group does the farz-i-kifâya, the others will be
absolved. When no one in the group observes it, the entire group will be sinful.
its dead mother’s womb) will stay alive, it is permissible to
lift it out through an opening cut in its mother’s abdomen. In a similar
instance Imâm A’zam Abű Hanîfa ordered to cut open a woman’s abdomen and the
child thereby rescued lived a long life.” It is not permissible to say, for
instance, “I want my blood and my other organs to be given to invalid or
wounded people after my death.” For, a statement of that sort means to donate
one’s organs as a waqf or as alms or to bequeath them. And all these three
transactions, in their turn, require a unit of property that is mutaqawwim for
their being sahîh (valid). A free person is not a unit of property, and nor are
any of his or her organs. (Please see the twenty-ninth (29) chapter of the
fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss for ‘property that is mutaqawwim’.)
The entire body of a
slave or jâriya captivated in a war has been said to be property only when they
are alive; yet their body organs and corpses are not property. It is
permissible to say, “If, after my death, there should be a darűrat that my
blood and/or my body organs be given to a Muslim, I grant the permission that
it be done so.”
A person who does not eat and drink and dies of hunger or thirst will be sinful for it. However, a
person who does not take medicine and dies thereafter will not be sinful. It is farz to take enough nourishment to perform namâz standing and to fast. It is
mubâh to eat and drink until you become satiated. It is harâm to go on eating and drinking after becoming satiated. Only, it will not be harâm to do so when you
are eating sahur or if you do so lest your guest should feel inhibited. Although it is permissible to eat and drink various kinds of fruit, dessert, and
beverages, it is better to avoid doing so. It is extravagance to keep an unnecessary variety of food on your meal table. It will not be extravagance if it is
intended to muster energy for acts of worship or to serve your guests. So is the case with keeping bread more than needed.
Pork should not be
eaten; it is a vehemently emphasized harâm. Flesh and milk of a domestic donkey
are makrűh tahrîmî[1] (to consume). They are halâl only in the Mâlikî Madhhab. It is
harâm to eat the flesh of an animal that has been killed purposely without
---------------------------------
[1] An act
or a behaviour that is makrűh is one that which our Prophet avoided
doing and recommended that Muslims also should avoid, although it is not
something enjoined in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. When an act or behaviour verges on being harâm it is makrűh
tahrîmî. When it is closer to being mubâh (permitted) it is makrűh
tanzîhî (or tenzîhî).
saying the Basmala, i.e. without doing so although the person
who kills the animal knows and remembers that he should do so, or that of a
game hunted without saying the Basmala, or that of an animal killed or a game
hunted by a disbeliever without a heavenly book or by a murtadd[1]. It is not harâm to
eat fish caught that wise. Land animals that are killed not by jugulation but
by stabbing, (unless the animal to be killed is a camel,[2]) or by hitting on the
neck or forehead or by strangling or by drugging or by electrocuting, become
lesh. It is harâm to eat them. Supposing a hunting dog or a falcon is set on
the game, catches it, and bites it dead; the flesh of that game can be eaten.
The game that they bring back alive must be jugulated. A game that the dog has
killed by choking instead of biting or which it has wounded and partly eaten
cannot be eaten.
It is harâm to eat the
flesh of a beast of prey that hunts by using its canine teeth or paws (or
claws). It is not halâl to eat insects living on land or in water. For
instance, it is not halâl to eat lizards, tortoises (or turtles), snakes, frogs
(or toads), bees, fleas, lice, flies, scorpions, mussels (or oysters), crabs,
rats (or mice), moles, hedgehogs (or porcupines), or squirrels. It is declared
in the Mâida Sűra that it is halâl to eat any fish caught alive. A fish that
died of itself in the water and floating with its abdomen upward must not be
eaten. Any fish caught with a net or cast net or killed by drugging or shocking
can be eaten. It is permissible to eat animals killed by disbelievers with a
heavenly book by saying the name of Allâhu ta’âlâ in their own language and in a manner prescribed by their own
heavenly book or killed by a woman or a child or a person who is junub, (i.e. a
person who needs a ritual washing called ghusl and which is explained in the
fourth chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss.) It is permissible
to eat an animal killed or a game hunted without saying the Basmala because the
person who has done the killing (jugulating) or hunting has forgotten to say
it. In the Shâfi’î Madhhab it is also permissible to eat (the flesh of) an
animal that has been killed without saying the Basmala. In the Mâlikî Madhhab
it must not be eaten even if the Basmala has been forgotten. If the antidote
called theriac contains flesh of snake
---------------------------------
[1] It goes
without saying that what is meant by the word ‘kill’ in this context is ‘kill
in a manner prescribed by Islam’, i.e. ‘jugulate’. And, incidentally, ‘murtadd’
means ‘a person who has abandoned Islam’, ‘a renegade’, ‘an apostate’. A
disbeliever with Muslim parents is termed a ‘murtadd’, too.
[2] Please
see the seventh line of the fourteenth paragraph of the fourth chapter in the
fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss.
and/or spirit, it is harâm to drink but permissible to sell. If
it is not known that it contains these substances, then it will be permissible
also to drink it. Please review the previous chapter! [Theriac means opium. A
person addicted to opium is called theriâkî. A medicament prepared by ancient
Greek physicians as an antidote to counteract the effects of poisons is called
so, too. It contains opium, flesh of snake, and spirit.] In case the origin of
the meat sold at a Muslim butcher’s shop is not known and it is probably halâl,
[i.e. if there are Muslims as well as murtadds among the butchers,] so that it
is not known how the animal was butchered, it is permissible to eat the meat.
If it is known first-hand or by the informing of an ’âdil Muslim that it is
harâm, it must not be eaten. However, it is not necessary to inquire. In the
Dâr-ul-islâm meat bought from a Muslim must be eaten without any doubt.
Flesh and milk of a
wild ass are halâl. If the flesh of an animal that had been eating dried dung
and other things that are najs stinks, if you feel a bad smell when you are
close to it, its flesh, milk, and sweat are najs, and it is makrűh to eat it. If
it is fed with something clean until its flesh no longer stinks, it will be
permissible to eat it. For that matter, Islamic scholars state that it is
necessary to confine fowls for three days, sheep for four days, and camels and
cattle for ten days (before they are butchered). Flesh and milk of a horse are
clean and halâl. Its being makrűh has been intended to protect it from
extinction. Flesh of a rabbit (and of a hare) is halâl.
It is sated as follows
in the book entitled Bedâyi’: “’Abdullah ibni ’Abbâs ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhumâ’ (3 years before
the Hegira, in Mekka – 68 [687 A.D.], Tâif,) relates: We were sitting in the
presence of the Messenger of Allah, when a villager brought in some broiled
rabbit meat. The Best of Creation said to us: ‘Eat it!’ Muhammad bin Safwân ‘radiy-Allâhu
’anhumâ’ relates: I caught two rabbits and butchered them. When I asked the
Messenger of Allah he ordered me to eat both of them.”
The author of the book
entitled Kitâb-ul-irshâd, (Ismâ’îl bin
Hibatullah ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’,) states: “Rabbit blood has proven curative to
leprosy, to light and heavy cases alike. The blood is spread on the speckles.
The rabbit’s brain, when eaten, will enhance one’s recuperative powers,
especially in getting over the convelescent trembles undergone after illnesses.
When it is put on babies’ gums it will help them cut teeth. A rabbit’s young is
butchered, the liquid exuded from its stomach and called ‘Enfiha’ is mixed with
vinegar; when a woman drinks the mixture in the afternoon for three days running,
it will prevent her becoming
pregnant. It is curative also to epilepsy and poisonings.” It is
makrűh to drink urine of edible animals. It is permissible to eat vegetables
from a garden irrigated with human and animal excreta, after washing them. It
is not permissible to eat vegetables irrigated with sewage.
It is makrűh tahrîmî,
for men and women alike, to eat and/or drink out of gold or silver receptacles
or to use gold or silver utensils by any means. This prohibitive rule applies
also to gold or silver spoons, watches, pens, water ewers for ablution, knives,
chairs, and such like. It is permissible for them to use such things for
purposes other than for their own bodies. For instance, it is permissible to
butter or honey bread with a silver knife and then eat the bread (thereby
buttered or honeyed) with hand. It is harâm to pour medicine in a gold
container onto one’s head. However, it is permissible to pour it thence onto
one’s hand and then apply the medicine in one’s hand to one’s head. Yet again,
it is not permissible to put into such containers beforehand the water or
medicine that you are to use later.
It is not permissible
to eat soup by using a silver bowl and a wooden spoon, since a spoon is
indispensable when you use a bowl for eating soup. So is the case with applying
a salve to your head by squeezing it out of the tube onto your hand and then
smearing it on your head. And so is the case with pouring water out of a
(silver) ewer into your hand and then washing your face (with the water).
Another example of such acts as are not permissible is to sprinkle rose water
onto one’s hands from a silver container and then rub the hands on one’s face
and clothes, which is a malpractice rife among people coming together for
performances of mawlid.
It is halâl only for
women to wear gold and silver to ornament themselves. But then they must not
show them, [e.g. the ring on their finger,] to men nâ-mahram[1] to them. It is harâm
for men to wear ornaments of gold and silver, the only exceptions being a
silver belt, a silver ring, and a silver watch chain or pocket knife chain,
which are permissible for them. Yet these things are harâm when they are of
gold. It is harâm for women as well (as for men) to wear as ornaments rings
made of stone or bronze or brass or platinum or any other metal. What is
essential here is not the colour or outer cover of the metal, but its inner
nature, its genus. Hence, it is permissible for men also to wear, for instance,
silver
---------------------------------
[1] Nâ-mahram is the opposite of mahram, which in
turn is explained in detail in the eighth chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless
Bliss.
rings gilded with gold paint. As for a
gold or copper ring gilded with silver paint; it is a gold or copper ring virtually,
yet it will be permissible to wear it so long as the gold or copper is not
visible, since what is seen is silver.
It is stated as
follows in the fifth volume of the book entitled Radd-ul-muhtâr: “It is stated in a
hadîth-i-sherîf that only silver rings are halâl for men and that it is harâm
for them to wear rings of gold or of iron or of yellow brass. Molla Husraw also
writes this fact. Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa salam’ wore only a silver
ring until his passing away. That this is the case is written also in the book Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya, (by Imam Ahmad bin
Muhammad Shihâb-ud-dîn Qastalânî, 821 [1418 A.D.] - 923 [1517], Egypt.) Alî
‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’ is quoted to have stated as follows in Shemâil-i-sherîfa, by (Muhammad bin
Îsâ) Tirmuzî, (209 [824 A.D.], Tirmuz [Termez] - 279 [892]:) “Rasűlullah
‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ wore his ring on his right hand (finger).” The
blessed Prophet was also seen to be
wearing it on his left hand. It is permissible to wear it on one’s left hand as
well as on the right hand. It is worn on the little finger or on the one next
to it. If a ring has an inscription on it, it is mustahab to shift it from the
left hand to the right hand before entering the toilet. It is better for men
other than judges, governors, and muftîs not to wear a ring. During the days of
’Iyd, it is mustahab for everybody to wear a ring. It is harâm to wear a ring
for ostentation or for boasting.
It is stated in the
three hundred and seventy-second (372) page of the translation (into Turkish)
of the book entitled Mawâhib-i-ladunniyya: “According to all four Madhhabs, it is not permissible for men
to wear gold rings.” It is stated in the books Jawhara-t-un-nayyira and Ibni ’Âbidîn and Durr-ul-muntaqâ and Fatawâ-i-Hindiyya: “It is makrűh, also
for women, to wear rings made from metals other than gold and silver.”
It is stated as
follows in the book entitled Bostân, (by Muslih-ud-dîn Shaikh Sa’dî Shîrâzî, 589 [1193 A.D.],
Shîrâz, Iran - 691 [1292], the same place:) “Nu’mân bin Beshîr Ansârî, (d. 64),
entered the presence of Rasűlullah. There was a gold ring on his finger. ‘Why have you been using
an ornament of Paradise before entering Paradise,’ questioned the
Blessed Messenger of Allah. Thereupon Nu’mân began to wear an iron ring. When
the Blessed Prophet saw it, he stated, ‘Why
are you carrying an article of Hell?’ Nu’mân took it off, too, substituting it with a bronze ring.
When the Blessed Prophet saw it he said, ‘Why do I sense a smell of idolatry on you?’ When Nu’mân asked,
‘What kind of a ring shall
I wear,
o you the Blessed Messenger of Allah,’ the Prophet said, ‘You
may wear a silver ring. Let it not be heavier than a mithqâl[1], and wear it on your right
hand!’
Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ would have gold and iron rings taken
off, yet he would not dissuade from silver rings.” These facts are written also
in the book Mawâhid-i-ladunniyya.
It is permissible to
gem a ring with any kind of stone or metal.
Now-a-days we have
been hearing of some gold ring wearers trying to rationalize their misdeed with
far-fetched casuistries in the name of fatwâ such as, “Gold ring was prohibited
because the Sahâba were poor people. It is permissible for rich people although
it is forbidden for the poor.” These statements of theirs are quite groundless.
As Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ interdicted the gold ring, he
also gave reasons for it. He prohibited it not for poor people, but for all
men. If it were harâm only for poor people, it would be harâm also for poor
women. Furthermore, the Blessed Prophet prohibited not only gold rings, but also to wear rings made
from other metals that are quite cheap. Another fact we would like to add is
that it was in Medîna that men were prohibited to wear rings made from metals
other than silver. Reports stating that the Sahâba were poor, on the other
hand, are confined to earlier days, when they were in Mekka before the Hegira.
Since sixty-four of the three hundred and five Sahâbîs who took part in the
Holy War (Ghazâ) of Bedr were Muhâjirs, the people who had become Believers in
Mekka were fewer than one hundred. The poor ones of the Medinean Ansâr and the
poor ones of the (Meccan) Muhâjirs lived under a huge trellis that was called Soffa and which was beside
the Mesjid-i-nebî, engaged in learning
and teaching knowledge, and spent most of their life making jihâd together with
the Messenger of Allah. They were called Ashâb-i-soffa. They had a changing
number. There were mostly seventy of them. Most of them attained martyrdom. All
the other Sahâbîs were rich people, and not only a few of them were ‘very’
rich. The author ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ of the book Bostân relates as follows in
its seventieth (70) page: “When Zubeyr bin Awwâm ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’
died, each of his inheritors inherited forty thousand dirhams of silver. When
Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Awf ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ became ill he bequeathed
one-twenty-fourth of his wealth to his ex-wife, whom he had divorced. She was
given eighty-three thousand gold coins.
---------------------------------
[1] Please see the first chapter of the fifth
fascicle of Endless Bliss for the weight of a ‘mithqâl’.
Hadrat Talha’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’
daily income was a thousand gold coins.” All three of those blessed people were
among the ten most fortunate Believers who had been given the glad tidings that
their eternal destination was Paradise[1]. Hadrat ’Uthmân’s ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ
’anh’ wealth could never be estimated. Owing to zakât, ghanîmat, and tijârat
(trade), there was not a single poor person left among the inhabitants of
Medîna. So blatantly feeble a rope is being clung to by those who are fumbling
to associate the prohibition of gold ring with poverty. Something harâm in all
four Madhhabs has to be believed to be harâm. If a person attempts to ramify a
clear interdiction of his Madhhab by distorting the meanings of âyat-i-kerîmas
and hadîth-i-sherîfs it will be understood that he is a person without a
certain Madhhab. And a person who has not affiliated himself with a certain
Madhhab will end up either in a heresy or in disbelief. It is related as
follows in the book Hadîqa, as the disasters incurred by one’s speech are being dealt
with: “There were three lines of inscription on the gemstone of Rasűlullah’s
ring. The first line said: Muhammad; the second line said: Rasűl; and the third line said: Allah. After the passing away of the Messenger
of Allah the blessed ring was worn by Hadrat Abű Bakr, and thereafter by Hadrat
’Umar. Thereafter ’Uthmân ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum’ wore it for some time
before he somehow dropped it into a well called Erîs. Although he spent a
considerable amount of property, it was impossible to find the ring. That event
aroused a fitna.”
An inscription on
Hadrat Abű Bakr’s ring said: Ni’ma-l-qâdir Allah. Hadrat ’Umar’s ring had: Kefâ bi-l-mawt wâ’izan yâ ’Umar, and the one worn by
Hadrat ’Uthmân said: Le-nasbiranna, while the inscription on Hadrat ’Alî’s ring said: el-mulk-u-lillah. The one on Hadrat
Hasan’s ring said: al ’izzat-u-lillah, and Hadrat Mu’âwiya wore a ring with: Rabbighfir-lî. Ibni Abî Leylâ had a
ring that said: ad-dunyâ gharűrun, Imâm-i-A’zam Abű Hanîfa had one that said: kul-il-khayr wa illâ
feskut,
while Imâm Abű Yusűf’s ring said: man ’amila bi-re’yihî nedima, the one worn by Imâm Muhammad read: man sabara zafira, and Imâm Shâfi’î
wore one that said: al barakat-u-fi-l-qanâ’a. They used their ring as a seal. Seals used by Ottoman Rulers
are called Tughra. Their tughra was
---------------------------------
[1] Those
ten blessed people are called ’Ashara-i-Mubash-shara. The other seven
are Abű Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthmân, ’Alî, Sa’d bin Abî Waqqâs, Sa’d bin Zayd, and Abű
’Ubayda bin Jerrâh ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’.
not on their ring. The tughra was kept by
a vizier specially charged with that duty. Each tughra contained the name of
the Ruler that it belonged to inscribed on it, above it was the name of his
father, and beneath it an inscription that read: al-muzaffer dâimâ. The earliest gold
coin was minted during the reign of Sultân Orhân, the second Ottoman Ruler.
Gold and silver coins minted at the behest of each Ruler (pâdishâh) had a
tughra inscribed on the front face, and the name of the city wherein it was
minted and the year of the Ruler’s julűs (accession to the throne) on the back.
The final form of the tughra had its inception during the time of Sultân
Mustafâ Khân the second.
It is not an Islamic
commandment to wear an engagement ring. It is being worn as a cherished custom.
It is stated in the book Kimyâ-i-se’âdet: “You should avoid sitting at a meal-table where there is a man
wearing a gold ring on his finger, and, (supposing you are to join other
Muslims about to perform a prayer of namâz in jamâ’at,) when you see a man
doing so in the first line you should slip back to the second line. This
eschewal should be had recourse to also with people with other habits that are
harâm.”
It is permissible to
keep gold and silver articles in one’s home, so long as they are not used.
It is not permissible
to eat out of untinned copper, bronze and brass containers. Earthenware and
porcelain dishes and cups are preferable. It is permissible to use tinned
containers or containers made of other metals or plastic containers. Also
permissible to use are gold and silver frameworks and other wares ornamented
with gold and/or silver pieces adhered to them or wires wound round them. It is
permissible to handle them by touching their gold-or-silver ornamented parts,
yet it is not permissible to touch those parts with your mouth or to sit on
them. It is permissible to use containers or other houseware covered with very
thin and inseparable layers of gold or silver like galvanized or gilded wares.
It is stated as
follows in Durr-ul-mukhtâr and in Radd-ul-muhtâr: “It is harâm for men to wear silks, underwears and outer
garments alike. Silk is cloth woven from threads produced by silkworms. [The
threads that are obtained when the silkworm pierces the cocoon and comes out
are short and valueless; yet no (Islamic) book has held them different from
long threads. Nor has any scholar said that they are halâl. All kinds of silk
are harâm (for men to wear).]
“The author of the
book entitled Muhît-i-Burhânî, (Burhân-
ad-dîn bin Tâj-ud-dîn Ahmad bin ’Abd-ul ’Azîz Bukhârî
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 551 [1156 A.D.] - 616 [1219],) cites a scholarly
report stating that it is permissible to wear (silk) clothes that do not
contact the body; yet no other book cites a report to that effect. They are
harâm regardless of whether or not they contact the body. According to the Two
Imâms, (i.e. Imâm Abű Yűsuf and Imâm Muhammad,) silk clothes are permissible to
wear only in a war. It is makrűh to have the lining of one’s clothing or
headpiece sewn from silk. It is permissible to sew a band as wide as four
fingers on the sleeves and/or lower edges and/or pockets and/or cuffs and/or
collars or lapels and/or headpieces. Several bands may be sewn. The limitation
of band-widths should be applied to each individual band separately. rather
than the widths of all the bands being added together so as to make up an
aggregate of the aforesaid limit of width, (i.e. four fingers.) Also
permissible are bands with a width of four fingers maximum and plaited from
silk threads. Silk clothes and gold bands of any width are permissible for
women. It is makrűh to let boys wear silks. It is permissible, for men as well,
to use silk mosquito nets. There is a scholarly narration stating that a silk
waistband is permissible. It is makrűh to wear a silk skullcap or to hang a
silk purse on the neck. It is permissible to perform namâz on a silk prayer
rug. It is not permissible to cover oneself with a silk quilt. It is
permissible for the following utensils to be of silk: thread made for watches,
keys or beads; a purse put into one’s pocket; bags; those for keeping the Qur’ân al-kerîm in; and wrappers. It
is permissible to cover walls with silk materials or carpets, if it is not
intended for boasting or ornamentation. It is permissible to use a silk carpet
or any other blanket spread out on the ground or floor, or to sit on such
things. It is makrűh to use silk table napkins and/or to wear silk underpants.
It is permissible to use a silk towel after an ablution.
Clothes woven with
silk warps and woofs (or wefts) not of silk are not harâm, for men, either.
For, the woof is the essential component of material; its warp is of no
importance. Clothes woven with silk woofs and warps not of silk is, like pure
silk, harâm (for men). Synthetic silk is halâl, also for men, to wear. For, it
is a compound of bright silk substances produced by chemicals and chemical
reactions. It is permissible to expose the cocoon to the sun in order to kill
the chrysallis inside it.” It is written in the book entitled Berîqa that it is not
permissible to kill it by exposing it directly to fire or putting it in boiling
water, instead of killing with sunlight.
Ibni ’Âbidîn
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ states as follows in the chapter entitled Hazar wa ibâha: “If a murtadd says, ‘I have
bought this meat from a Jew,’ he must be believed, and the meat may be eaten.
If he says that he has bought it from a certain person, whom is known to be a
murtadd, the meat must not be eaten. For, in Mu’âmalât[1], e.g. in buying and
selling, îmân (being a Believer) and ’adâlat (being an ’âdil Muslim) are not
essential conditions to be required (of the person to be transacted with). So,
a statement made by a child or by a disbeliever, those with a heavenly book and
bookless ones alike, must be taken for granted.
“Supposing a group of
people are sitting at a meal table, you enter, and they invite you to eat with
them; on the other hand, another Muslim, an ’âdil one, too, says that the meat
they have been eating is from an animal killed by a murtadd or that their drink
is mixed with wine: you should sit and eat with the inviters if they are ’âdil
Muslims. If otherwise, you should not sit there. If two of them are ’âdil,
again you sit with them. In case only one of them is ’âdil, you should search.
If you cannot reach a conclusion, you may sit there, eating and drinking with
them and, (in case you need an ablution and they ofter you water for it,) you
may use their water making ablution.
“Supposing there are
various containers at a place and the containers containing clean things have
been mixed with the ones with najs contents: if the ones with clean contents
are greater in number, you search for the clean ones and use their contents for
eating, drinking, or making an ablution, depending on the situation, and
regardless of whether there is a darűrat for doing so. In case their numbers
are equal or the containers with clean contents are fewer, and only on the
condition that there is a darűrat, and with the exception of water to be used
for ablution, you use the ones that
---------------------------------
[1] As
Huseyn Hilmi bin Sa’îd Iţýk ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ explains on various
occasions in his valuable books, Islamic knowledge is divided into two major
parts: Religious knowledge and Scientific knowledge. Religious knowledge has
various divisions, such as ’Aqâid (Tenets of Islamic Belief);
’Ibâdât (Acts of worship, halâls, harâms, etc); Mu’âmalât (Social and Business
transactions among people); Munâkahât; and ’Uqűbât. Chapters from
twenty-eight through forty-six of the fifth fascicle of Endless Bliss have been
allotted to Mu’âmalât. These four divisions make up the Islamic science
termed Fiqh. Therefore, the word
‘Islamic Jurisprudence falls far short of standing for the word ‘Fiqh’.
you have searched about and found out to be clean. Of the kinds
of meat being sold at the butcher’s, you search and buy the ones that are from
animals killed in a manner dictated by Islam, in cases of a darűrat. If there
is not a darűrat, you search and then buy meat if the number of butchers who
kill the animals properly (as shown by Islam) is greater. If the numbers are
equal, you should not buy meat there. This rule applies also to buying clothes
or textiles. In short, search must be made in either case if the number of the
clean ones is greater. If it is equal or smaller, the clean ones should not be
searched for, when there is not a darűrat. In case there is a darűrat, the
clean ones should not be searched for when an ablution is involved. Otherwise,
the clean ones may be searched for and the ones guessed to be clean may be
used. For, it is possible to substitute an ablution with a tayammum[1]. As for satr-i-awrat[2] and food and drink;
these needs do not have alternatives. As is seen, in either case a choice will
be made after a search, if the clean ones are in majority. If they are not in majority,
the search will be made only in case of a darűrat and when an ablution is not
involved.”
Sayyid Ahmad Hamawî
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (d. 1098 [1686 A.D.],) states as follows in his
commentary, (entitled Uyűn-ul-besâir,) to the book Eshbâh: “There are three instances of doubt: Doubt in something that
is essentially harâm; doubt in something that is (essentially) mubâh, (i.e.
halâl;) and doubt in something whose essence is not known. When a sheep killed
by jugulation, (as it is the manner taught by Islam,) is seen at a place where
there are butchers who kill the animals compatibly with Islam’s teachings as
well as people who are murtadds, it must be known that the sheep has been
killed in a manner justified by Islam. For, it is doubted that it may be halâl
although it is harâm in essence. If the number of the murtadds among the
butchers is smaller, it is permissible to buy the meat and eat it. [Likewise,
it is permissible to buy meat at a butcher’s shop and eat it.] Muddy water with
a bad colour is accepted to be clean. For, water is essentially clean. That it
may be najs (unclear, impure,) is doubtful. If most of a person’s earning is by
way of harâm, it is makrűh, not harâm, to buy something that he has put to
sale, unless it is definitely known that that thing was obtained by way of
harâm.” It is stated in its hundred and forty-seventh (147) page: “Presents
offered by a person most of whose
---------------------------------
[1] Please see the fifth chapter of the fourth
fascicle of Endless Bliss for ‘tayammum’.
[2] Endless Bliss, 4:8.
property has been obtained by way of halâl may be accepted and
eaten. If most of his property has been obtained by way of harâm, things that
he offers by saying that they are his halâl property may be accepted. If he
does not say so as he offers them, the policy to be followed must be determined
in accordance with the conclusion one reaches after a (short) search. This rule
applies also to property bought.” Meat butchered and sold by a disbeliever without
a heavenly book or by a murtadd should not be bought. If that disbeliever or
murtadd says that the animal (that the meat belongs to) was butchered by a
Muslim, he will have informed that the meat is halâl, and information of that
nature must not be believed. So is the case with the expression, “alcohol-free
beer,” since ‘beer’ is the name of a widely known alcoholic drink. It is like
saying, “clean urine.” Something that is not najs (dirty, foul,) should not be
called ‘urine’; nor should the name ‘beer’ be given to an alcohol-free drink.
The ninth article of Majalla reads: “Something remains to be itself as long as it retains its
characteristics. Assertions that its characteristics have been changed should
be rejected.” It is stated in its tenth article: “Something that has existed
for a certain time should be accepted to be existent now; and its being
otherwise will have to be proven.” It is stated in its forty-second article: “A
widely-known fact (meshhűr), rather than the maghlűb and the nâdir, (in this
nonce, an unsustainable and far-fetched yarn spun to suit to the occasion,)
should be held with.” It is stated in its forty-sixth article: “When the
dissuasive choice exists versus the persuasive one, the dissuasive one should
be preferred.” Supposing you bought some meat from a Muslim; it will not be
permissible to eat it or to let (other Muslims) eat it if an ’âdil Muslim tells
you that the animal, (i.e. the source of the meat,) had been butchered by a
murtadd. In that case, however, you will not be accredited to get your money
back. Please see the final pages of the sixth chapter of the fourth fascicle of
Endless
Bliss!
It is stated as
follows after the chapter dealing with left-overs in the book Merâq-il-felâh, (by Abu-l-Ikhlâs Hasan bin Ammâr Shernblâlî, 994 - 1069 [1658
A.D.], Egypt,) and also in its commentary written by (Ahmad bin Muhammad bin
Ismâ’îl) Tahtâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (d. 1231 [1815 A.D.]:) “If an
’âdil Muslim says that a certain piece of meat belongs to an animal butchered
by a fire-worshipper and another ’âdil Muslim says that the animal (in
question) was butchered by a Muslim, it will not be halâl to eat that meat.
That is, its being harâm will go on being the case. For, the essential
principle is that an animal seen to have been
butchered must be taken to be harâm. It
will become halâl when it is verified that it has been butchered in a way
dictated by Islam. When two different pieces of information contradict each
other, its being halâl will not have been verified and its being harâm will
keep on being the case. Doubt felt over something is analogical to two
contradictory sources of information. When there is doubt about something that
is harâm in essence, e.g. when a butchered animal is seen at a cosmopolitan
location where Muslims and bookless disbelievers such as fire-worshippers live
together, it will not be halâl to eat the meat from that animal unless it is
known to have been butchered by a Muslim. For, it is essential that the animal
has died in a way that is harâm, whereas it is doubtful that it has been
butchered by a Muslim. If the majority of the inhabitants of the city were
Muslims, it would be accepted as halâl meat.”
It is stated as
follows in the chapter dealing with karâmats[1] in the book entitled Maqâmât-i-Mazhariyya: When he saw Ghulâm
Hasan he said: “You must have eaten food from disbelievers. There is zulmat
(darkness, evil) of disbelief (caused by that food) in your heart!” Thereupon
Ghulâm Hasan admitted: “Yes. I ate the food given by a Hindu.” Food with signs of disbelief
(kufr) and harâm darkens the heart and causes the corpse in the grave to rot.
---------------------------------
[1]
Allâhu ta’âlâ creates everything and every event through a
law of causation that is called ’âdat-i-ilâhiyya and
which also is His creation. This law of causation we mostly mention with
terms such as ‘laws of physics’, ‘laws of chemistry’, and so forth. It is His
Divine Habit also to suspend this law of causation for the sake
of His beloved slaves from time to time, so that extraordinary
events called ‘miracle’ take place through those beloved slaves
of His. When He creates those wonders through His Prophets,
we call those events ‘mu’jiza’. When He creates them through
His other beloved slaves, whom we call Walî (pl. Awliyâ), we term
those wonders ‘karâmat’ (pl. karâmât).