It is stated as
follows in the fifth volume of the book entitled Durr-ul-mukhtâr: Nejm-ad-dîn Ghazzî
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (977 – 1061 [1651 A.D.], one of the scholars of
Fiqh in the Shâfi’î Madhhab, relates: “Formerly, tobacco was not something
known to exist. Tobacco smoking had its inception in 1015 [1606 A.D.], in
Damascus. Smokers advocate that it is not an intoxicant. Believable as it may
be, its laxative effect is obvious. And that effect, in turn, causes it to be
harâm. For, according to a narration which Imâm Ahmad conveys on the authority
of Umm-i-Selema ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anhâ’, “Intoxicants and laxatives were
interdicted.” One or two experiences will not be sinful. It will be harâm when
the government bans it. It will be a grave sin to carry on, since it is a grave
sin to continue committing venial sins.”
As for the Hanafî
Madhhab; the great scholar Ibni Nujeym Misrî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (926
– 970 [1562 A.D.], Egypt,) states as follows in his book Eshbâh: “Things that have
not been declared to be harâm in âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs are halâl
essentially. Or, they cannot be judged to be halâl or harâm. Most of the
scholars in the Hanafî and Shâfi’î Madhhabs ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim
ajma’în’ said that things of that sort would be halâl. Ibni Humâm also says so
in his book entitled Tahrîr. Likewise, an (edible) animal that is not known to have been
butchered after saying the Basmala or a herb without any observed harm should
be judged to be halâl.” This rule applies to the tobacco, too. It is halâl
according to most Islamic scholars. According to a few scholars, however, a
judgment cannot be reached on it. [As Ahmad Hamawî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
’alaih’, (d. 1098 [1686 A.D.],) explains the book entitled Eshbâh in his book entitled ’Uyűn-ul-besâir, notes: “Hence it is
understood that it is halâl to smoke tobacco.”] ’Abd-ur-Rahmân Imâdî, a scholar
in the Hanafî Madhhab and the Muftî of Damascus, states as follows in his book
entitled Hediyya: “Tobacco, like
onions and garlic, is makrűh.” Ibni ’Âbidîn explains these words as follows:
The following
statement has been quoted from the commentary of Wahbâniyya, (by Abu-l-Ikhlâs
Hasan bin ’Ammâr Sherblâlî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 994 – 1069 [1658
A.D.]:) “Smoking and selling tobacco must be banned.” [Murâd Khân the fourth
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’[1] imposed a ban on smoking tobacco.
---------------------------------
[1] The eighty-second Islamic
Khalîfa and the seventeenth Ottoman Emperor, (1018 [1609 A.D.] – 1049 [1640].)
(The aforesaid great Islamic scholar) Sherblâlî ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ ’alaih’ was contemporary with the great Ruler. Joining the consensus of
the Islamic scholars who stated, “Mubâhs will be harâm when the Khalîfa bans
them,” he said that tobacco must be banned. It is noteworthy, however, that he
did not say “harâm” or “makrűh” about tobacco, although he said that it must be
banned.]
Smoking tobacco will
break a Muslim’s fast. Ismâ’îl bin ’Abd-ul-Ghanî Nablusî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
’alaih’, (d. 1062 [1652 A.D.],) states as follows in his commentary to the book
entitled Durer: “One may prohibit
one’s wife from eating onions, garlic, and the like, on account of their smell.
Also, a person who dislikes the smell of tobacco may prohibit his wife from
smoking tobacco.”
Alî Ejhurî
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (967 - 1066 [1656 A.D.],) one of the greater ones
of the Mâlikî scholars in Egypt, wrote a book explaining that tobacco was
halâl, and appended to it the fatwâs that had been delivered by the scholars of
the four Madhhabs and which stated that tobacco was halâl. ’Allâma
’Abd-ul-Ghanî Nablusî also wrote a book, entitled as-Sulh-u-beyn-al-ihwân, which expatiates on
that tobacco is mubâh. That book and its translation exists in the library of
Nűr-i Osmâniyye (in Istanbul). It refutes people who say that tobacco is harâm
as well as those who hold the belief that it is makrűh. It says, for instance:
“If it is harmful to some people, then it is harâm only for them. It is not
harâm for others. Likewise, honey is harmful for a person suffering from a
bileous disease. But it is not harâm for others. In fact, it promotes good
health. Everything is halâl essentially. Calling something harâm or makrűh
requires evidence for doing so. The worst of all wicked things is (drinking)
wine, and although Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ had been sent to
humanity with the mission to teach Islam to them, he could not say (on his own)
that wine was harâm. He waited until an âyat-i-kerîma was revealed to prohibit
its consumption. Then, it is mubâh, halâl, to smoke tobacco. It is an act of
(makrűh that is termed) tab’an makrűh. It is not shar’an makrűh.”
Ibni ’Âbidîn goes on
as follows: “Smoking tobacco is not harâm in the Shâfi’î Madhhab. It is written
in their books that it is makrűh tanzîhî. In fact, according to their scholars,
“Tobacco is to be treated like fruit in case quitting it would not give harm to
a woman; in that case it will be necessary for her husband to give her money to
buy tobacco. And it must be treated like medicine if it would harm her to quit
smoking; in that case it will not be wâjib for him to meet her expenses on
tobacco.” It is harâm to smoke
-59-
tobacco or to eat
things like onions or garlic in a mosque.
(Muhammad bin Mustafâ)
Hâdimî of Konya ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (d. 1176 [1762 A.D.],) the author
of the book entitled Berîqa, which is adduced as support by those who argue that tobacco is
harâm, states as follows in the eighty-fifth page: It is purported in an
âyat-i-kerîma: “Things that are khabîth (dirty, foul) are harâm.” The book of Tafsîr entitled Wâhidî (or Vesît), (by Abul-l-Hasan ’Alî bin Ahmad, d. 468 [1075 A.D.], Nishâpűr,) explains this âyat-i-kerîma as follows: “The
word ‘khabîth’ as used in the âyat-i-kerîma refers to lesh (flesh of an animal that has been killed either (or both) in a manner contrary to Islamic teachings
or (or and) without uttering the Basmala, i.e. the Name of Allâhu ta’âlâ,) blood, and pork. This âyat-i-kerîma prohibits all three of them.” On the other hand, everything that is khabîth is
harâm. And everything that is harâm is khabîth. For instance, polytheism, cruelty, fâiz (interest), and bribery are khabîth. It has been stated (by Islamic
scholars) that everything that is said to be foul by mankind is khabîth. Hence, tobacco is khabîth and harâm.
He states in the
hundred and thirty-third page: Bid’ats that are not done as acts of worship or
intended for earning thawâb are called bid’ats in customs. An example of them is to use things like flour sieves and
spoons. It is not dalâlat, deviation (from the right path), to do things that
are bid’ats in customs. People with wara’ and taqwâ (Please see the
forty-second chapter of the first fascicle of Endless Bliss for these terms) also
use utensils of this sort, when there is a darűrat to do so. It is better not
to use them, although it is not a sinful act to use them. Some scholars said:
“Smoking tobacco and drinking coffee also are bid’ats in customs. Both of them
are acts that are neither harâm nor makrűh. This is the truth. If a person says
that these acts are harâm, he will have made bid’at-i-’âdiyya harâm. As for the
Sultân’s prohibiting them; his injunctions are to be obeyed when they are
agreeable with Islam, not when they are delivered for the gratification of his
personal tendencies or as an indulgence in the desires of his nafs.” We may
agree with them concerning coffee. Yet it is still something that we had better
avoid availing ourselves of. For, there is not a consensus (of scholars)
concerning it. As for tbacco; true as it is that it is not harâm, that it is
makrűh is beyond a shadow of doubt, since there is not a consensus (of
scholars) on that it is halâl. When the Sultân (President of the State) bans
something that is mubâh, it is wâjib to observe the ban. In fact, when the
thing banned is something whereon there is not a consensus (of scholars), then afortiori
it will
-60-
be wâjb to observe the ban. It is stated in the book entitled Telvîh, (written by
Sa’d-ud-dîn Teftâzânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 722 [1322 A.D.], Teftâzân,
Khorasan – 792 [1389], Samarkand, as a commentary to the book entitled Tenvîh, by Sadr-us-sharî’a:)
“Doubted things will be harâm.”
It is stated as
follows in its twelve hundred and forty-third (1243) page: There are six groups
of things that cause eating and drinking to become harâm: Intoxicants, e.g.
wine. Najs (dirty) ones, e.g. urine and blood. Harmful ones, e.g. sand and
soil. Disgusting ones, e.g. semen and mucus. Khabîth ones, e.g. bedbugs. Deadly
ones, e.g. poisonous substances. As for habitual tobacco smokers; tobacco is
said to have been harmful to them. It has been observed that most of them catch
diseases. Forming a judgment on matters of this sort requires a survey of their
generic and all-inclusive features. The judgment to be formed cannot be based
on a sporadic sampling. Some people argue that tobacco has been useful against
some diseases and that for instance it loosens phlegm and bile. Yet this
argument belongs to ignorant people. Doctors do not smoke it. And specialists
do not write so. Their statements are to the contrary. We have heard that some
doctors say that mankind would live for a thousand years were it not for
tobacco. [This faqîr, the translator[1], finds no logic in this statement, which is quoted as having
been made by doctors; it causes consternation. For, natural human life-spans
were no different before tobacco appeared; average lengths of human life were
as they are today. Since the ’Asr se’âdet, (the blessed period of time wherein
the Best of Creation ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ and his four Khalîfas, Abű
Bakr, ’Umar, ’Uthman, and ’Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anhum ajma’în’ lived,) no
one has been heard to have lived for a thousand years.]
Another statement made
about tobacco is that it is an intoxicant. It is the case with the beginners.
As a smoker gradually gets used to it, its intoxicating effect loses its grip.
So is the case with wine. Imâm Muhammad ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ stated
that if something taken in high doses were harâm it would be harâm as well to
consume a small amount of it. It was for that matter that some scholars said that
tobacco was harâm. Others, however, merely dissuaded against smoking it. And
there were others, who maintained that smoking tobacco would annoy non-smokers,
and that it was harâm to annoy other people. Some
---------------------------------
[1] The
blessed Islamic scholar and Walî, Huseyn Hilmi Iţýk ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ
’alaih’, means himself.
-61-
scholars, on the other hand, stated that tobacco fell within the
interdiction in the hadîth-i-sherîf: “Let him who have eaten onions or garlic not approach our mesjîd (mosque)!” Scholars of Fiqh
stated that things with a bad smell should be taken out of the mesjîd. Tobacco
has been said to be a bid’at. However, a bid’at [reform, change] that is harâm
is one which is made in tenets of belief and/or in acts of worship. Bid’ats in
customs and habits are not harâm; they are mubâh. Bid’ats that run counter to
sunnats or to the causes of sunnats are forbidden. For instance, the reason for
the miswâk’s[1] being sunnat is that it will remove the bad smell from one’s
mouth. Tobacco eliminates this hikmat (divine reason or cause). Bid’ats that
are beneficial to religious practices are beautiful things. Tobacco is not one
of them. Tobacco has been stated to be khabîth. People with a nature called
‘selîm (mild-serene)’ are disgusted with tobacco. Some scholars said that it
was smoked for amusement and pleasure and as an indulgence in arrogance. This
reason would suffice to make tobacco harâm, although it is mubâh essentially.
According to some scholars tobacco is isrâf (prodigality, wastefulness), since
it is something not necessary. It is identical with giving away one’s property
only for pleasure. There may even be people who would pay very much property to
buy it. It may cost acts of worship, such as performance of namâz in jamâ’at.
It may cause acts of harâm, such as lying, backbiting, talebearing, and
gossiping. This statement is reinforced by events such as tobacco smokers’
being dreamt of after death, the changes seen on their faces and mouths when
their graves were reopened, and their graves’ having been filled with smokes.
As is seen, there is a variety of different statements and fatwâs concerning
tobacco. Scholars, let alone laymen, have failed to get round this matter. Some
scholars have said that it would be halâl, mubâh. Some of them have warned
against the threat it has posed. According to those who have said that it would
be halâl, “Something that is harâm must have been clearly declared to be so, or
that it is harâm must be a bare fact. Tabacco has not been interdicted clearly
(in the four sources of Islam). And there are no longer any authorized
mujtahids to arrive at the conclusion that it is harâm. As for the authorized
mujtahids of the past; there is not a single statement concerning tobacco on
their part. On the other
---------------------------------
[1] Please
see the thirteenth of the adabs of an ablution dealt with within the second
chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss for the word ‘miswâk’.
-62-
hand, non-mujtahids’ saying that it is halâl or harâm is of no
importance. Then, smoking tobacco is mubâh and halâl essentially.” Those who
have warned against its danger have taken the aforesaid arguments into
consideration. Perhaps those who maintain that it is something dangerous have
more plausible reason to believe so. For, granting a few of the aforesaid
arguments are wrong, the matter will still not be free from doubt. In the
aggregate will they reinforce the conviction. On the other hand, that “there
are no longer athorized mujtahids” is an ambiguous statement. Fully authorized
mujtahids no longer exist today; yet there still may be some semi-authorized
scholars, (i.e. infra-matter mujtahids,) who are capable of making an analogy
between ijtihâds. Although the early mujtahids made no statements concerning
tobacco, it is possible to try and associate tobacco with one of the conclusive
and clearly stated judgments that they made. Non-mujtahid scholars may be able
to do this job. Tobacco smoking remains a doubtful issue, at the most. And doubtful
things, in their turn, are harâm. It is stated in a hadîth-i-sherîf: “A person who does what
is doubtful would just as soon commit harâm as well.” Behaviour that one
avoids should incorporate also making a habit of doing acts that are mubâh or
risky. It would be reasonable to say that tobacco is risky. And it would be
sinful, venial as it may be, to dive too deeply into enjoying the mubâhs. Even
if we should say that tobacco is halâl, then it is something addictive. Acts
that are mubâh will have to be accounted for on the Day of Judgment. Tobacco is
enjoyed mostly by fâsiq people. And they set an example for others who watch
them. Moderate behaviour is commendable in all situations.
It is stated in the
thirteen hundred and forty-seventh (1347) page: A hadîth-i-sherîf reads as
follows: “Let
a person who has eaten onions or garlic not come to our mesjîd.” For, a bad smell will
hurt angels. So is the case with people who have (newly) eaten things with a
bad smell, such as leeks, people suffering from a disease causing a bad smell,
such as leprosy, people with a stinking wound, and people wearing clothes
smelling of fish or meat. These people are not allowed into a mosque. It is
makrűh tanzîhî to eat raw onions or garlic when going to a mosque. It is not
makrűh to eat them cooked. It is permissible to eat them as medicaments. That
it is for this reason that smoking tobacco is makrűh, is written in Yahyâ Efendî’s Fatwâ. A pious Muslim will
not smoke tobacco for fear of (disobeying) this hadîth-i-sherîf. Here we end
our translation from the book entitled Berîqa.
-63-
The following passage has been translated
from the hundred and forty-third (143) page of the hijrî 1290–Istanbul edition
of the book entitled Hadîqa: “Things like flour sieves and spoons did not exist during the
’Asr-i-se’âdat. They appeared afterwards. Inventions of this sort, which have
been intended not for worshipping Allâhu ta’âlâ or earning thawâb, are called bid’ats in customs. These bid’ats are
not among those bid’ats that are defined as heresy and deviation from the right
path in the hadîth-i-sherîf. People who do bid’ats of this sort will not be
punished for them (in the Hereafter). People of wara’ had better not do them.
An example of them is men’s eating too much and putting on fat. Imâm Munâwî,
(924 [1518 A.D.] – 1031 [1621], Cairo,) states as follows in his commentary to Jâmi’-us-saghîr: “Men’s putting on
fat is one of the harbingers presaging the approaching Doomsday. Two other
bid’ats in customs are smoking tobacco and drinking coffee. Each of these
things has become the indispensable wont of modern people, good and bad ones
alike. Various comments are being made about them, but the truth of the matter
is that there are no grounds to say that either is harâm or makrűh. Both of
them are bid’ats
in customs. A person who calls them ‘harâm’ by adducing any reason will have called a bid’at in customs ‘harâm’. That a bid’at in customs cannot be said to
be ‘harâm’ has been stated unanimously by Islamic scholars. As for the Sultân’s commandments and prohibitions; it is wâjib to obey them as long as they are
agreeable with the commandments and prohibitions of Allâhu ta’âlâ. It is not wâjib to obey them if they have been intended to put his personal thoughts and views into practice. All the commandments and
prohibitions of Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ were agreeable with the commandments and prohibitions of
Allâhu ta’âlâ. He would never command or prohibit something on his own. Had it not been the case, it would not have been wâjib to obey all his injunctions.
Then, afortiori, it will not be wâjib to obey the Sultân’s arbitrary and discretionary commandments. However, if the person who has given the commandment is a
cruel one and oppresses and persecutes the people, it will be wâjib for a person in fear of death to obey the ban imposed on such mubâhs by that cruel
president, especially if he is an out-and-out bloody villain. For, it is not permissible for a Muslim to expose himself to danger. So, it will be wâjib not to
consume coffee and not to smoke when they are banned. Yet the purpose intended for the obedience should be of protecting one’s life and chastity, rather than
avoiding an act of harâm or makrűh.
-64-
To obey the ulul-emr (presidents, leaders) means to obey the
rightful commandments and prohibitions of Muslim superiors.”
Hadrat Ismâ’îl Haqqi
(or Hakki) formerly wrote that tobacco was harâm. For, Murâd Khân, the Sultân,
had banned smoking tobacco, and smokers were being put to death. What the
blessed scholar said to be harâm was not tobacco itself, but it was to smoke
it, because it would cause execusion. In a book that he wrote after the
government lifted the ban from tobacco, he wrote that tobacco was not harâm. I, the
humble translator, have seen that book in the Library of Orhan in Bursa.
The following excerpt
has been borrowed from the book entitled Fat-h-ur-rahîm[1], from its
twenty-ninth page on: ’Alî Ejhurî, a scholar in the Mâlikî Madhhab, states as
follows, on the authority of Shaikh Khalîl, in his book entitled Ghâyat-ul-beyân: “An intoxicant that
paralyses mental activity and gives pleasure without anaesthetizing the senses
is called a muskir, (which lexically means ‘that which causes fits of
intoxication’.) If it is something that paralyses mental activity without anaesthetizing
the senses or giving any pleasure, it is called a mufsid, i.e. a morphine. If
it both paralyses mental activity and anaesthetizes the senses, it is termed murqid or munawwim, i.e. narcotic or
soporific or hypnotic. A person who drinks an intoxicating substance deserves
the flogging chastisement termed ‘hadd’; it is harâm to drink even a small
amount of it, although that amount will not intoxicate; such substances are
najs (dirty, foul)[2]. ’Abdullah Menűfî Shâdhilî said: ‘Leaves of Indian hemp (cannabis
sativa), which is also called ‘hashish’, are muskirs, since there are
people who sell their household goods in order to buy hashish. They would not
do so if it were not an intoxicant.’ Badr-ad-dîn Muhammad bin Bahâdir
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (745 [1344 A.D.] - 794 [1391], Egypt,) a scholar
of Fiqh in the Shâfi’î Madhhab, said so, too. He said also that hashish was
harâm regardless of the amount taken. According to Shaikh Abu-l-Hasan
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, as he wrote in his commentary to the book
entitled Mudawwana, (which had been
written by Ibn-ul-Qâsim Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Mâlikî ‘rahmatullâhi
---------------------------------
[1] Written
by Sayyid Mes’űd bin Hasan Qanâwî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ of Egypt as a
commentary to Ibn-ul-Verdî’s book of qasîda entitled Lâmiyya.
[2] The
word ‘najs’ is an adjective, and ‘najâsat’ is a noun derived from ‘najs’.
Please see the sixth chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss
for kinds of ‘najâsat’.
-65-
’alaih’, d. 191,) and also according to scholars such as ’Allâma
Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Merzűq Shams-ad-dîn Abű ’Abdullah Tilmsânî Mâlikî
‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’, (711 [1311 A.D.], Tilmsân [Tlemcen, Algeria] – 781
[1379],) and Shihâb-ud-dîn Ahmad bin Idrîs Qarâfî Mâlikî ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’,
(626 – 684 [1285 A.D.], Egypt,) hashish is a mufsid, a morphine. For, people
who take it do not fight, yet they become numb and insensible. According to
Ibni Daqîq-ul ’Iyd ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’, (d. 702,) a scholor of Fiqh in the
Shâfi’î Madhhab, opium obtained from hashish has a more powerful effect than
does hashish because a little amount of opium is enough to intoxicate a person,
although there has been a scholarly consensus that it is not najs. Hashish is
not najs, either. As Imâm Nawâvî (or Nevevî) ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (631
[1233 A.D.] – 676 [1277], Damascus,) states in the commentary to the book
entitled al-Muedhdheb-fi-l-furű’, which had been
written by Abű Is-haq Ibrâhîm bin Muhammad Shîrâzî, Shâfi’î, (d. 476,) whereas
it is harâm to drink a small amount of wine although it would not intoxicate a
person, hashish that is too little to intoxicate a person is not harâm. Henbane
and opium, like hashish, are permissible when they are eaten in amounts too
little to intoxicate you. These herbs will disrupt one’s mental activity and
impair one’s nerves when they are taken in high doses. Now some exploiters are
extracting the harmful substances that they contain and selling the pills and
injections they prepare from them in the name of pleasure giving ecstasy drugs
to students, to workers, and to footballers. It is harâm and gravely sinful to
buy and use these intoxicants, which will lacerate our spiritual values such as
morals, chastity, faith and belief, and patriotism.]
“As for smoking tobacco;
it does not paralyze one’s mental activity. Nor is it something najs. Hence, it
is not harâm to smoke tobacco. It will be harâm in case it causes other kinds
of harm. It is not harâm for a person who will not suffer harm from it. It will
be harâm for a person who finds out that it is harmful to him, which in turn
can be judged from certain facts, e.g. medical advice given by a reliable
’ârif, [i.e. a specialized doctor,] or from one’s personal experiences. Rules
are adaptable in matters whereon Islam has not given certain directions.
Accordingly, something (that cannot be found in the Islamic sources) will be
harâm if it is harmful. Otherwise it will not be harâm. Laxity that tobacco
produces on new smokers is analogous to laxity felt upon entering into a pool
of hot water or upon taking a purgative. This effect is short of paralyzing
one’s mental activity. Even if it should be supposed that its laxative
-66-
effect is a result of the paralyzing effect it produces on mind,
then it still cannot be said to be a muskir, since it does not give pleasure.
As it is permissible to eat a small amount of opium that will not paralyze
mental activity, likewise it is permissible to smoke a small amount of tobacco
that will not paralyze mental activity. And this, in its turn, varies,
depending on the person involved and on the amount taken as the criterion. A
certain amount that would suffice to paralyze a certain person’s mental
activity may be too small to have the same effect on another person. As is
seen, tobacco cannot be definitely said to be harâm. Only a religiously
ignorant or obstinate and bigoted person would say so. Since it does not
paralyze mental activity, the fact that it is halâl naturally follows. Nor
could there be sense in arguing that tobacco is najs since it is cleansed with
alcohol. For, stating the obvious fact that alcohol is harâm would not detract
from the argument that tobacco is not harâm. On the contrary, it would mean to
acknowledge that tobacco cleansed without using alcohol is not harâm. It could
not be argued, either, that tobacco is harâm because it is wastefulness
(isrâf). For, property paid for buying something has not been wasted. And it
would not be a scientific approach to argue that it is harâm because it is
harmful. For, it is harâm for a person who suffers harm from it. If it does not
harm a person it will not be harâm for him. Nor would it be compatible with
science and experience to say that it is harmful for everybody. Its curative
power on some diseases has been observed. According to ’Allâma Shaikh Muhammad
Nihrîrî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, a scholar in the Hanafî Madhhab, if a
person is told by a tabîb-i-muslim-i-’ârifî that tobacco will be harmful to
him, or if he himself becomes aware of its harm with his own experiences, it
will be harâm for him to smoke tobacco. The same scholar gave a fatwâ stating
that tobacco would be halâl unless its harm was definitely known. In another
fatwâ of his he stated that it would be harâm for a person who would suffer
harm from it, and that otherwise it would not be harâm.
“There is not a
hadîth-i-sherîf about tobacco. It is written in the three hundred and
twenty-eighth page of Eshi’a-t-ul-leme’at that the tree mentioned in the hadîth-i-sherîf, ‘Let a person who has
eaten from the bad smelling tree not be close to our mesjîd! If something is
hurtful to people, angels also will loath it,’ means onions and
garlic. It is stated in a fatwâ given by Nawr-ad-dîn ’Alî bin Yahyâ Ziyâdî
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (d. 1024) that tobacco is harâm for a person who
would lose his mind if he smoked it, and not harâm for others. Also
’Abd-ur-Raűf-i-munâwî
-67-
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (924 [1518
A.D.] - 1031 [1621], Cairo,) a great scholar of Fiqh in the Shâfi’î Madhhab,
gave a fatwâ stating the same thing. Another scholar who gave the same answer
was Shams-ud-dîn Muhammad bin Ahmad Shevberî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, a
Shâfi’î scholar. He said: ‘Tobacco is like other mubâhs. That is, it is not
harâm itself. Those who state to the contrary have no evidence to adduce.
Theirs is sheer obstinacy.”
“Mer’î bin Yűsuf
Muqaddisî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (d. 1033 [1633 A.D.],) a scholar of
Fiqh in the Hanbalî Madhhab, states in his book entitled Tahqîq-ul-burhân
fî-shân-id-dukhân that tobacco is not harâm so long as it does not cause any other
harm, that it is like inhaling smokes of a fire through one’s mouth, and that
no one ever stated that an act of that sort would be harâm.
“When something new
appears, it will be (accepted as) a mubâh if it is something like a mubâh, and
it will be a harâm if it is something like a harâm. A wise man of religion will
certainly liken tobacco to mubâhs. He will not dare to say that it is harâm,
unless it causes harm.
“Abd-ur-Raűf-i-Munâwî
said that there was not a hadîth-i-sherîf censuring tobacco. As is seen,
scholars of all four Madhhabs have announced unanimously that it is not harâm
to smoke tobacco in an amount that will not suspend one’s mental activity.”
Here we end our quotations from ’Alî Ejhurî.
It is stated as
follows in the book entitled Jelâl-ul-Haqq fî kashf-i-ahwâl-i-shirâr-il-khalq, which was printed in
Alexandria in 1355 [1936 A.D.], and also in the commentary entitled ’Izziyya by Muhammad bin
’Abd-ul-Bâqî Ezherî Zarqânî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (1055 [1645 A.D.],
Zarqân - 1122 [1710]:) ’Alî Ejhurî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih was asked: A
hadîth-i-sherîf reads: “Avoid wine and the green plant!” In fact, Huzayfa-t-ubni-Yemân ‘radiy-Allâhu ’anh’
related: Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam’ and I were
walking together, when he saw a plant and shook his blessed head. I asked
him why he had done so. He explained: “During the latest time people will smoke
the leaves of this plant. It will intoxicate them, and they will perform namâz
in that state. They are wicked people. They are far away from me. Allâhu ta’âlâ does not like them.”
Hadrat ’Alî ‘radiy-Allâhu ta’âlâ ’anh’ quoted the blessed Prophet as having stated:
“People who smoke it will stay eternally in Hell. They are the devil’s friends.
Do not shake hands (make musâfaha) with a person who smokes tobacco! Do not
embrace that person! Do not greet him! For, he is
-68-
not one of my Ummat.” According to
another narration he stated: “They are from among the (people called)
‘Ashâb-i-shimâl’.[1] Tobacco is the drink of the (people called) shaqîs. It was
created from the devil’s urine. The devil urinated when Allâhu ta’âlâ told him that he would
not be able to mislead His beloved slaves. And from that urine came about the
plant called tobacco.” What would you say about these statements? Hadrat ’Alî
Ejhurî answered as follows: “None of these statements is a hadîth-i-sherîf.
Scholars of (the Islamic branch of knowledge called) Hadîth have informed us
that they are lies and slanders. In fact, the poor literary quality of the
statements reveals them to be too inferior to have been uttered through the
blessed mouth of the Messenger of Allah. As Rebî’ bin Haysem ‘rahmatullâhi
ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (d. 68 [687 A.D.], Tus,) stated, there is a (special) nűr in
hadîth-i-sherîfs as there is light in the Sun. A person who concocts
hadîth-i-sherîfs will go to Hell. It is stated as follows in a hadîth-i-sherîf
quoted in the books entitled Bukhârî and Muslim: ‘If a person lies by quoting an utterance in the name of hadîth although it is not my utterance, he
will be transfixed on a stake of fire in Hell.’ Imâm-ul-Harameyn
’Abd-ul-Melik ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (419 - 478 [1085 A.D.], Nishâpűr,)
stated that a person who concocted a hadîth-i-sherîf would become a
disbeliever. However, it is an act of harâm, not one of kufr (disbelief). If a
person’s smoking tobacco will suspend or harm his mental activity or cause him
to fail to provide the sustenance of his family, who are wâjib for him to
support, or to fail to perform a prayer of namâz within its prescribed time, it
is harâm for him to smoke it. It is not harâm for other people to smoke
tobacco.”
It is permissible to
sell mufsids, i.e. narcotic substances, in amounts that will not suspend mental
activity, as well as to sell any medicine. As well, it is permissible to sell
tobacco to people who will not lose their mind (when they smoke it).
As is understood from
what has been written so far, unlike alcoholic beverages, opium, morphine,
hashish, and the like, tobacco is not something made harâm to smoke. I, the
faqîr, do not like the smoke of tobacco. I
have
never smoked it. Nor has any other member of my household. However, I cannot
say that it is harâm only because my nature loathes it. Halâls are known, and
so are harâms. And so, too, are the doubtful acts that have been stated by
(those profound Islamic scholars called) mujtahids. The doubtful
---------------------------------
[1] Please see the twenty-seventh chapter of the
fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss for ‘Ashâb-i-shimâl’.
-69-
acts are those which have been called
‘halâl’ by some mujtahids and ‘haram’ by others. Those who call them ‘harâm’
should not do them. And those who say that those acts are permissible had
better avoid doing them. Unawareness of halâls and harâms on the part of
non-mujtahids and people not educated in the Islamic sciences termed ‘usűl’
does not mean that they are doubtful acts. It is written in the ninety-fourth
page of the book entitled Berîqa that “Non-mujtahids’ statements are not delîl-i-shar’î, (i.e.
they should not be accepted as proofs in religious matters.)” Something that is
halâl does not require evidence for being known so. For judging that something
is harâm, however, evidence will be necessary.
If all the things
making up a genus have been declared to be harâm by way of the nass, (i.e. if
there are âyat-i-kerîmas and/or hadîth-i-sherîfs declaring that they are
harâm,) in that case only will it require evidence to say that a certain few of
them are ‘halâl’. Something that has not been declared to be harâm is to be
accepted as halâl. Calling it ‘harâm’ requires adducing evidence and proving
that it is so. Ibni ’Âbidîn ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ quotes the hundred and
forty-fifth âyat-i-kerîma of An’âm Sűra, which purports: “Something which Allâhu
ta’âlâ has not stated to be halâl or harâm is one of the things which Allâhu
ta’âlâ has forgiven,” in the chapter entitled Dhebâyih, shows that anything that has not been
declared to be harâm or which is not analogous to acts that have been declared
to be harâm, is mubâh. Then, people who say that nothing has been declared
concerning tobacco should say that it is mubâh; they should not say that it is
harâm or makrűh. It is manifest that the statements intended to pass for hadîth-i-sherîfs
against tobacco are misrepresentations and lies. For, tobacco did not exist in
Arabia during the ’Asr-i-se’âdat. As we mentioned earlier in the text,
tobacco’s advent into Muslim countries was as late as 1015 (A.D.).
A person with
sufficient background in Islamic knowledge will shy away from saying that
tobacco is makrűh tahrîmî. For, Ibni ’Âbidîn states as follows in the fifth
volume: “As Imâm Muhammad stated, ‘makrűh tahrîmî’ means ‘harâm’. According to
the (other) two Imâms, however, it means ‘verging on being harâm’. According to
their ijtihâd, a person who commits an act that is makrűh tahrîmî, like a
person who omits an act that is wâjib, will suffer torment in Hell, whereas a
person who denies it will not become an unbeliever. So is the case with the
doubtful. What is meant by the word ‘doubtful’ is a rule which a mujtahid has
derived from âyat-i-kerîmas or hadîth-i-sherîfs that are not muhkam, i.e. those
which
-70-
are not clear and are open to ta’wîl, or from hadîth-i-sherîfs
that have been narrated by only one person, muhkam as they are. And by
‘dangerous’, ‘something prohibited by Islam’ is meant.” Hence, smoking tobacco
cannot be said to be ‘dangerous’, either.
‘Bad habit’ means
‘habit of committing a harâm’. It is not worthy of a man of religion to call
using something that is not harâm a ‘bad habit’. An ignorant person will be
bold. He will not be ashamed to make statements that Islam does not approve of.
We trust ourselves to Allâhu ta’âlâ against being like those people who call the statements of
superior Islamic scholars ‘nonsensical’ only because they are counter to their
nature and personal opinions.
Another denunciation
of tobacco comes from gourmands, who say that it cannot be likened to food. “It
is not a kind of need to burn the plant called tobacco and to inhale its smoke;
so it is not something permissible,” they say. I
wonder
what they will say about burning frankincence or aloe wood or incense and
smelling its smoke? Will they say that such things are not permissible since they
are not edible or drinkable? Will they likewise denounce something being
practised as an act of sunnat with the dead as well as with the living, saying
that it consists in burning something up into smokes that disappear into air?
The fact, however, is that these herbs, as well as many another bad smelling
species, have been included in the word, “The jewels that He produces from earth...
.”
The Fuqahâ-i-kirâm (great scholars of Fiqh) ‘alaihi-r-rahma’ have said that the
âyat-i-kerîma that purports, “Who is to prohibit the jewels that Allâhu ta’âlâ produces from earth?” subsumes within it
concept even satisfactions such as enjoying beautiful sights or lovely jâriyas.
They have stated that those enjoyments, therefore, are permissible. [Multeqâ, (by Halabî Ibrâhîm,
866. Aleppo - 956 [1549 A.D.],) and Mejma’ul-enhur, (a commentary to the former rendered by Shaikhîzâda
’Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Muhammad ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, d. 1078 [1668
A.D.].)] It is commanded in the book entitled Shir’at-ul-islâm that the strong-scented
herb called ‘rue’ (rute graveolens) should be eaten to suppress the
smell of onions. What could differentiating tobacco smoking from burning
frankincense or chewing rue construed to be as, if not as sheer bigotry? That
Lawh-i-mahfűdh or ’Ilm-i-ilâhî is meant by the word Kitâb in the fifty-ninth
sűra of An’âm Sűra is written in all the books of Tafsîr. And all the harâms in
that Kitâb (Book) have been declared in the Qur’ân al-kerîm. People’s understanding will vary
directly as their knowledge and ikhlâs. (Sources of Islamic knowledge called)
Sunnat; Ijmâ’ (unanimity, consensus of the early
-71-
Islamic scholars); and Qiyâs (analogy which a mujtahid employs
to understand the hidden meanings in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and thereby to provide solutions for intricate religious
matters,) have not been intended to add knowledge to that conveyed by the Qur’ân al-kerîm. They expound the
knowledge covert in the divine phraseolgoy of the Qur’ân al-kerîm.
Ibni ’Âbidîn
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ states as follows in the chapter entitled Dhebâyih: “Khabîth means (something)
disliked by the Ashâb-i-kirâm. For, the Qur’ân al-kerîm tells them that it is so. Things that appeared after the
Ashâb-i-kirâm are good or khabîth (wicked), depending on their approximity to
the things that they said to be good or khabîth.” Tobacco is not khabîth. Books
of Fiqh do not classify even narcotic herbs as ‘khabîth’. It is stated in the
two hundred and ninety-fifth page of the fifth volume of Radd-ul-muhtâr: “Solid substances
and herbs that will intoxicate a person who takes a high dosage of them are
pure, clean, and mubâh, essentially.”
If something mubâh
(permitted, free) is harmful to a certain person, it will be harâm for that
person. It will not be harâm for people to whom it is not harmful. There are
many people to whom tobacco is not harmful. If it is harmful to people who
smoke too much, then it will be harâm for them to smoke too much. However, it
would be wrong to say that it is harâm for these people even to smoke a little
or that smoking is harâm also for people who do not suffer harm from it. And it
would be quite wrong to say that if something is harmful when it is taken in a
high dosage it will be harâm to take a small amount of it. Too much of anything
will be harmful. Too much bread or water will be harmful, too. It is for this
reason that it is harâm to eat after satiation. Why should eating or drinking a
little of something be harâm because too much of it would be harmful? In fact,
it is farz (an open commandment of Islam) to eat and drink enough to be able to
perform acts of worship. The aforesaid wrong statement may have been made by an
unlearned person who misunderstood the scholarly utterance, “If something will
intoxicate when a large amount of it is consumed, then it is harâm to consume
even a small amount of it.” Intoxicants are harmful. Yet, not everything
harmful is an intoxicant. This subtlety should be discerned well.
It is very dangerous
to add tobacco to the list of harâms only because one loathes it or thinks
little of it. It means to interpret the Qur’ân al-kerîm with one’s personal thoughts.
The author
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ of the book Hadîqa states
-72-
as follows as he deals with things that are harâm to consume:
“There are three groups of things that are harmful to eat or drink: The harm of
the ones in the first group is known by everybody. They are deadly things. All
kinds of poison, glass powder, compounds of iron and quicksilver, lime, and the
like are a few examples. It is harâm to eat or drink them. The second group are
not deadly, although it is known that they are harmful. Examples of them are
soil, mud, clay, and the like. It is makrűh to eat or drink too much of these
things, and mubâh to eat or drink harmless amounts of them. The third group are
harmful to physically weak people and harmless to people in robust health.
Fish, milk, [eggs, pressed meat called ‘pastirma’, pickles or chutneys, canned
meat,] honey, olive oil, peppers are harmful to some people. These things are
harâm or makrűh only for people to whom they will be harmful. They are mubâh
for people to whom they will not be harmful.” Those who hold that tobacco is
harmful acknowledge that they can consider it in the third group at the most.
There is not a single scientist to state that it is a poison that will kill
anyone who smokes it. For, everyone knows that it is not a poison with that
strength. Nor has anyone been heard to say that to smoke one or two cigarettes
a day will mean to poison oneself on account of the poisonous substance called nicotine that tobacco contains.
For, that assertion would be like saying that to breathe will mean to poison
oneself on account of the gas called carbon dioxide that air contains. One of
the constituents of bitter almonds (prunus amygdalus) is amygdalin
glicosidine, which contains cyanic acid, which in turn many times more
poisonous than nicotine. No one says that bitter almonds are poisonous or that
it is harâm or makrűh on account of this poison that they contain. In a
conference held by the teaching staff of the faculty of dentistry in Istanbul,
one of the speeches delivered contained the statement that “the nicotine formed
in the mouth by a couple of cigarettes smoked daily has had a protective effect
on the tooth gums, whereas an excess of this limit has proven harmful.” Too
much of any food or drink will be harmful. By the same token, it is doubtless
that smoking too much will be harmful. However, it would be quite contrary to
science and wisdom for people who hear this reasoning to suppose that smoking
is harmful and causes cancer, that even one or two cigarettes a day will give
harm, and that therefore it is harâm or makrűh.
Sayyid Ahmad bin
Muhammad bin Ismâ’îl Tahtawî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (d. 1231 [1815
A.D.],) a scholar of Fiqh in the Hanafî Madhhab, states as follows in his
annotation to the
-73-
book Durr-ul-mukhtâr: “According to Nejm-ud-dîn Ghazzî Shâfi’î, ‘Tobacco is not an
intoxicant, yet it is harâm because it causes laxity. It will not be a grave
sin to smoke one or two cigarettes.’ The word ‘harâm’ as he uses in his
statement means ‘a venial sin’. Most of the scholars of Fiqh in the Shâfi’î
Madhhab said that it would be makrűh tanzîhî. In the Hanafî Madhhab it is
makrűh tanzîhî, like onions and garlic.”
We will repeat once
again that ‘ijtihâd’ does not mean to search, find, and announce facts that our
blessed Master the Prophet ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ did not state. ‘Ijtihâd’ means
to detect and uncover the facts stated covertly in âyat-i-kerîmas and hadîth-i-sherîfs.
Did Rasűlullah ‘sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam’ not know about the future events
that his Ummat was to experience? Or, did he hide his knowledge of the future
harâms, in the face of the fact that it was farz for him to let his Ummat know
about them? It was not necessary for him to tell about everything. But it was
his duty to warn against harâms. Nor was it necessary to name all the harâms
one by one. There being no clear mention of tobacco in hadîth-i-sherîfs or in
the ijtihâds (of great Islamic scholars) is not because tobacco did not exist
in their time. Many other things were not mentioned separately although they
existed in those times. So comprehensive are the methods and the rules and the
criteria established and formulated by the (profound Islamic scholars called)
mujtahids that by employing them it is and will always be possible till the end
of the world to make a judgment on each and every newly arising situation so as
to discriminate halâls from harâms. Those which are named in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in the
hadîth-i-sherîfs are the basic criteria whereon to establish these methods and
rules. The ones that would not be essential have not been named. On that
account, in the Hanafî Madhhab, for instance; anything that would not fulfil the
conditions essential for being harâm according to the methods and conditions
established by the Madhhab and based on the criteria manifested in the Qur’ân al-kerîm and in
hadîth-i-sherîfs, is a mubâh. Ibni ’Âbidîn notes as follows as he explains the
acts of sunnat in the performance of ’abdest (ablution), and also as he
explains the situations concerning countries captured by disbelievers, in the
third volume: As is explained in the book (entitled Tahrîr, written by Muhammad
bin Mahműd Bâbertî Ekmel-ud-dîn Misrî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 713 [1312
A.D.], Bâberta, Baghdâd – 786 [1384], Egypt, as a commentary to the book
entitled) Usűl-i-Pezdevî, (written by
Fakhr-ul-islâm ’Alî bin
-74-
Muhammad Pezdevî ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, 400 – 482 [1089 A.D.],
Samarkand,) anything that has not been clearly declared to be harâm is halâl,
according to the unanimity of scholars. For, Allâhu ta’âlâ declares that such things are all mubâh,
in an âyat-i-kerîma of Baqara Sűra, which purports: “For you have I created
everything.” It would mean to contradict the books of (the Islamic science
termed) Usűl to say that the argument that things that have not been stated to
be harâm are mubâh belongs to people in the (deviated group of Muslims called)
Mu’tazila. As is stated in the book Tahrîr, everything is halâl by creation, according to the majority of
scholars of Fiqh in the Hanafî and Shâfi’î Madhhabs. Ekmel-ud-dîn states so in
his commentary to Pezdevî and adds: Supposing some people have not heard that something (edible)
is harâm; then it is mubâh for those people to eat it. Imâm Muhammad’s
statements, “Lesh and wine became harâm after they were prohibited,” suggests
that all things are mubâh in essence and that harâms became so after they were
interdicted.
To say that no one
likes tobacco is like denying the existence of the Sun. Millions of people
enjoy smoking, commend it, and advocate it. To like tobacco does not mean to
declare one’s love for it. It means to enjoy smoking it. How could it be denied
that it is being relished by a wide variety of people from all sorts of social
groups and vocations, such as muftis, preachers, imâms, laymen, scientists,
statesmen, doctors, chemists, gentlemen, generals, and so forth? One should be
an ignorant simpleton to call something being used by millions of pious
Muslims, Khalîfa-i-muslimîns and Shaikh-ul-islâms a ‘bad habit’ and to attempt
to liken it to harâms only because it is counter to one’s mental and natural
predilections. ’Abd-ul-Hamîd Khân the Second ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’, (the
forty-fourth Ottoman Pâdishâh and the ninety-ninth Islamic Khalîfa, 1258 [1842
A.D.] – 1336 [1918],) was a tobacco smoker. Tobacco was brought to him from
Shemdinân and from the city of Iskeche (Xanthi, within the borders of Greece as
of today). Tobacco from places such as Shemdinân (Shemdinli), Samsun (a coastal
city in northern Turkey,) and Iskeche, cut into a few span-long, yellow
slivers, has a pleasant scent. As it is lit and smoked with a pipe it exudes an
odoriferous smell. Pleasant smelling choice tobacco cannot be blamed for the
bad smell produced by sullied blends of tobacco being smoked. A person who
dislikes bitter pepper cannot talk about bitter, let alone sweet, pepper with
disfavour. Nor can he say that it is an act of makrűh to eat it. If he does so,
he will have put forward a spurious argument. If every man jack makes a list of
-75-
his dislikes and labels them ‘harâm’ and ‘makrűh’, the Islamic
religion will degenerate into Christianity. Like Christianity, it will turn
into a jumble that can never be rearranged.
Isrâf (wastefulness)
is an act of harâm, and quite a vicious one. How daring it is to say off-hand
that tobacco is definitely an isrâf. An even worse expression of inanity and
ignorance is to utter words such as ‘out of place’ and ‘valueless’ about the
statements of Islamic scholars. The first requirement is to understand these
things; next, negations must be made one by one and by providing documentation.
Yes. A person who conjectures parochially on the lexical meaning of ‘isrâf’
without bothering to look up the explanation and the classification provided by
Islam, will dismiss the matter by simply saying that smoking tobacco is the
worst isrâf. It is an offence to dock the money necessary for the subsistence
of one’s family. Why is the blame incurred by the offender being put only on
tobacco and no quota from the criticism is being assigned to the major culprit,
i.e. laziness and expenditure on harâms and needless ventures? Why is a poor
person’s docking the money he is to spend daily for the needs of his family and
buying tobacco being milked for the purpose of calling one or two cigarettes
smoked by a rich person or a poor person’s smoking the cigarette offered to him
‘harâm’? Their argument has a ring of ingrained bigotry, which in turn betrays
their biased hostility against tobacco.
Ceasing from tobacco
will not cause one to earn thawâb for resisting against (the wishes of) one’s
nafs[1]. It is cruelty to
deprive one’s body of its needs. It is a sinful act. The nafs will not be
satiated when it attains its needs. What it wishes is always beyond its needs,
i.e. the harâms. Then, resisting against one’s nafs involves abstaining from
the harâms and from excess in enjoying the mubâhs. Not to smoke tobacco once a
day is not resistance against one’s nafs. Resistance to it is abstinence from
smoking tobacco too much, which means not to smoke so much as to abuse one’s
health and wallet. This resistance against one’s nafs should be caried on not
only with tobacco, but also with all the other (permitted acts termed) mubâhs.
Nor will likening
tobacco to opium indicate that it is harâm for everyone. On the contrary, it
will indicate that it is not even makrűh for people who smoke it below the
limit of harm. For,
---------------------------------
[1] Nafs is
a malignant creature inherent in the human nature. It is inimical to Allâhu
ta’âlâ and to His commandments. All its wishes are harmful to it and to
the person carrying it.
-76-
profound scholars of Islam, i.e.
mujtahids, distinguish narcotics like opium from the alcoholic beverages, which
are harâm. It is stated in the hundred and sixty-sixth (166) page of the third
volume of Durr-ul-mukhtâr: “It is mubâh to eat
the narcotic herb called henbane. For, it is a plant. It is harâm to become
intoxicated with it.” Please see the booklet Hâd-id-dâllîn, (by Hâdji Tűsi!)[1] Henbane is called
‘Jusquiame’ or ‘Hyoscyamus’ in medicine. There is lengthy information on its
harmful and useful effects on people in the book entitled Plantis Medicinales
(1927) and written in French by Dr. A. Heraud. Ibni ’Âbidîn expounds this as
follows: “Imâm A’zam and Imâm Abű Yűsuf said that it is mubâh. According to
Imâm Muhammad, if something would intoxicate a person who took a high dose of
it, then even a small amount of it is harâm. The fatwâ given in this subject
was said to have been in agreement with this ijtihâd. However, the statement
that ‘a small amount of something is harâm if it would intoxicate a person who
took a high does of it,” is intended for beverages. This fact is stated clearly
in some books. If it were not the case, it would be harâm to eat a small amount
of solid substances such as saffron and ambergris since large amounts of them
will intoxicate the consumer. I have not seen an Islamic scholar saying that
these things are harâm. In fact, those Shâfi’î scholars who said that “a person
who drank only a small amount of the beverages that would intoxicate when taken
in a high dosage should be chastised with the flogging called ‘hadd’,” meant
liquids only. If it were harâm to eat small amounts of substances like henbane
and saffron according to Imâm Muhammad, these substances would be najs, foul,
dirty. For, according to Imâm Muhammad, a small amount of something that would
intoxicate when taken in a high dosage is harâm and najs. On the other hand,
not a single Islamic scholar has said that henbane and the like are najs. It is
permissible to use henbane as a medicine. It is not permissible to use it as a
narcotic or intoxicant. Imâm Muhammad’s statement is meant for beverages.
Because henbane and the like are solids, they are harâm only when they are used
as intoxicants and in large amounts. They will not be harâm when they are used
in small amounts. For instance, it is not harâm to use ambergris and the like
as perfumes, the (gum resin yielded by the) poisonous plant called scammony as
drastic purgative,
---------------------------------
[1]
That booklet is the sixth fascicle in the book entitled Ghâyat-ut-tahqîq
and written by Shaikh Muhammad Hayât Muhaddith Medenî
Sindî, (d. 1163 [1749 A.D.], Medîna.) The book was reproduced by Hakîkat Kitâbevi in Istanbul in 1413 [1992
A.D.].
-77-
and/or other solid medicines in small amounts. It is permissible
to use small amounts of them. It is not permissible to use them in harmfully
large amounts.” Not so is the case with using, for medicinal purposes, amounts
too little to intoxicate of alcoholic beverages that would intoxicate a person
who drank plenty of them. According to the unanimity of scholars (of Fiqh), it
is not permissible to use a small amount of alcoholic beverages (even) as a
medicine, unless there is a darűrat to do so; it is harâm.
Bad habits have no
place in Islam. For, a bad habit means to make it a habit to commit a harâm.
Drinking alcoholic beverages, gambling, and fornication are a few of such
habits. Why should tobacco be a bad habit while it is not harâm? When their
statements made to prove that tobacco is harâm and bad are observed with due
attention, it will instantly be seen that they are not documentary
argumentations, but opinionated prejudgments exercised with a penchant for
foisting their fixation that tobacco is harâm. Such initiations, in the science
of logic, are far from having a documentary value.
Why should tobacco be
’abess (useless occupation), lehv (amusement) and la’b (or lu’b = game), which
means to occupy oneself uselessly, to waste time. An example of ’abess is to
spend one’s time playing musical instruments or useless games. Tobacco is not
something to kill time with; why, then, should it be said to be ’abess. Tobacco
does not prevent its smoker from doing something useful. As you smoke you may
read a book or chat with a guest.
That it is indecorous
to smoke in the presence of one’s elders or superiors, in mosques, during
preachings, and at other respected places, does not show that it is harâm or
makrűh. It is not decorous, either, to lie down in the presence of one’s elders
or superiors or stretch one’s feet out towards them or in the presence of one’s
elders or superiors or stretch one’s feet out towards them or in the direction
of the Ka’ba or eat fruit or even bread during a preaching or class. There are
many other things that cannot be done at certain places or in the presence of
people who would be offended, although none of them is an act of harâm or
makrűh when you are on your own. It is makrűh to do buying and shopping or to
talk loudly or to have oneself bled in a mosque. [Please see the twenty-first
chapter of the fourth fascicle of Endless Bliss!] But these things are not makrűh (when they are done) outside
of the mosque. In fact, it is an act of worship to do buying and selling
outside. To have oneself bled, (when done outside of the mosque,) is an act of
sunnat, not an act of makrűh. Tobacco cannot be said
-78-
to be ’abess. As a matter of fact, it is not ’abess to use forks
and spoons or to dab on perfume.
A cognitive repertoire
whose entry ‘needs’ is merely comprised of ‘things that go down into the
stomach’ is symptomatic of a naive look on life. That the human body and soul
have various needs is a fact that takes a place both in religious books and in
the actual meeting of minds. Not only do all our sense organs have a variety of
needs, but the needs of the entire nervous system vary from one organ to another.
It has become axiomatic that these needs are no less vital than bread and
water. We see an unimaginable variety of needs in books of Fiqh. For instance,
a statement in the book entitled Durr-ul-mukhtâr reads: “To buy a handkerchief to use for blowing your nose or
wiping the sweat from your face is permissible if it is intended to satisfy
your need, and makrűh tahrîmî if it is intended for ostentation, which is a
result of arrogance.” As is seen, even the usage of something is a need,
depending on the intention. It is harâm to go on eating after satiation. But it
is halâl, and a blessed act yielding thawâb, too, to do so if you are to fast
the following day or lest your guest (eating with you) should feel inhibited.
While something that is harâm turns into an act of halâl when it is intended to
be kind to your guest, why should we blame someone for offering tobacco, which
is not harâm at all? Would that those people who censure tobacco orient their
onslaught onto acts that Islam has made harâm; so much better off would they be
with the thawâb they would thereby have earned, and with the service they would
thereby have rendered to Islam. But, alas, everyone has weaknessess whereby the
devil gains footholds to mislead them. It both incites them to attack Islam and
coaxes them into flattering themselves on having performed an act of worship.
Statements made on these matters without understanding them properly will both
stain the honour of Islam and demean the person who makes them. Only after
acquiring a thoroughgoing education should a man of religion talk or write on
matters of this sort. To talk sensationally or, in other words, to attempt to
pass one’s personal views off as Islamic commandments and prohibitions, and to
be carried away by sheer dogmatism instead of looking at the evidence in the
nusűs (âyats and hadîths) in distinguishing between halâl and harâm acts, will
end in bitter disappointment. Especially, it is so ludicrous to pass
self-assured judgments on the physiological, therapeutic and toxic effects of
tobacco in a vain attempt to prove that tobacco is harâm.
A few scholars said
that tobacco was harâm, while others said
-79-
that it was makrűh. When their books are studied with due
attention, it will be seen that some conditions, such as ‘docking the
livelihood of one’s family’, ‘annoying others with its smoke’, ‘smoking so much
as to harm one’s body’, and the like, have been imposed on tobacco, and it has
been censured in event of those conditions. No scholar has said anything
against smoking tobacco in the abstract. The passage that I translated
from Hâdimî’s ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’ book entitled Berîqa and which is quoted
above shows this fact clearly. The statements made and the tobacco pamphlets
written by religiously non-authoritative people and which therefore are quite
forlorn in value with respect to Islamic knowledge and science, are without the
scope of our argument. Then, a modicum of tobacco smoked by a person safe from
the conditions exposing tobacco smoking to condemnation, should not be labelled
as ‘harâm’ or ‘makrűh’. That tobacco is not harâm is proved with documentary
evidence in the book al-’Uqűd-ud-durriyya[1] as well as in the final section of the second volume of Hadîqa, and also within the
chapter dealing with the things that will break one’s fast of Tahtâwî’s
annotation to the book entitled Merâq-il-falâh.
The book entitled
Tuhfa-t-ul-ikhwân mâ kîla fi-d-dukhân, which was written by the Damascene
scholar Mustafâ Rushdu, (d. 1260 A.D.,) and which was printed in Alexandria in
1318, renders a detailed account of the things that are harmful and which have
a deleterious effect on the human health, and provides an extensive explanation
about isrâf (wastefulness). It adds that tobacco is not among those things. “It
is not wara’ and taqwâ to say that tobacco is harâm. People with wara’ and
taqwâ cannot say, “harâm,” about something which Allâhu ta’âlâ has not made ‘harâm’. ’Allâma ’Abdullah
bin Muhammad Nihrîrî, a Hanafî scholar, and ’Alî bin Yahyâ Nevr-ad-dîn Ziyâdî
and ’Abd-ur-Raűf-i-Munâwî and Shaikh ’Alî Shevberî and Ismâ’îl Senjîdî, Shâfi’î
scholars; and ’Allâma Kullî, a Mâlikî Scholar; and Shaikh Mer’î, a Hanbalî
scholar, ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaihim ajma’în’, gave fatwâs stating that tobacco is
not harâm. Something that is neither harmful nor necessary is a mubâh;
something that awakens one’s brain from the state of stagnation and jogs one’s
memory is a mendűb (or mandűb); something that is harmful to quit is a wâjib;
something
---------------------------------
[1] It was
written by Ibni ’Âbidîn Sayyid Muhammad bin Amîn bin ’Umar bin ’Abd-ul-’Azîz
‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaih’, (1198 [1784 A.D.], Damascus – 1252 [1836], the
same place.)
-80-
that is harmful to use is harâm; and
tobacco is makrűh for a person who does not want to smoke it,” he says. Not so
with wine. If a person addicted to wine makes tawba, (i.e. if he ceases from
drinking wine, feels penitent, entreats Allâhu ta’âlâ for forgiveness, and promises to Him that he will never commit
that grave sin once again,) and if he becomes ill and passes away as a result
of having given up wine, he will earn thawâb for that.
I have
had to write at that length for the purpose of showing the right way to people
who think worse of tobacco than of alcoholic beverages and who hate tobacco
smokers. We should not be overcome by our emotions, should not say ‘harâm” or
“makrűh” about smoking tobacco too little to cause harm or addiction, and
should not look on those who smoke too little to harm their wallet and health
as fâsiq, sinful people; this attitude is advised by a majority of Islamic
scholars, such as Shaikh-ul-islâm Abu-l-Beqâ, (789 - 854 [1450 A.D.];) Ahmad
bin ’Alî Harîrî Khalwatî, (d. 1048 [1639 A.D.];) Ismâ’îl Mer’ashî; Qâdî
’Abd-ur-Rahîm; Ghanîm bin Muhammad Baghdâdî, (d. 1030 [1621 A.D.];)
Shaikh-ul-islâm Behâî, (d. 1064 [1654 A.D.];) Muhammad Tarsűsî, (d. 1177 [1705
A.D.];) Muhammad Kehwâkî; Egyptian scholars such as Yűsuf Dejwî, (d. 1365 [1945
A.D.],) and Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Bâqî Zerqânî, (1055 [1645 A.D.], Zerqân - 1122 [1710
A.D.];) ’Allâma ’Abd-ul-Ghanî Nablusî, (1050 [1640 A.D.], Damascus - 1143 [1731
A.D.];) ’Abd-ur-Rahmân bin Muhammad Imâdî, (978 [1571 A.D.] - 1051 [1641];)
’Abd-ur-Rahmân ’Alî Ejhurî, (967 - 1066 [1656 A.D.]; Mahműd Sâminî, (d. 1313
[1895 A.D.], Palu;) ’Uthmân Badr-ad-dîn, (1274 [1857 A.D.], Erzurum, Turkey -
1340 [1922], Harput;) Sayyid ’Abd-ul Hakîm Efendî, (1281 [1865 A.D.], Baţkale, van, Turkey -
1362 [1943], Ankara;) and the great scholar and Waliyy-i-kâmil Mawlânâ
Khâlid-i-Baghdâdî, (1192, Zűr, to the north of Baghdâd - 1242 [1826 A.D.],
damascus,) ‘rahmatullâhi ta’âlâ ’alaihim ajma’în’. The following excerpt is a
translation from the 1986 May issue of the periodical entitled Insan ve Kâinât (Man and the
Universe), a sub-publication of the Turkish daily newspaper, Türkiye: “An
experimental survey conducted over five thousand patients being treated in
seventy-eight American hospitals found that risk of cardiac failure is
three-fold among heavy smokers, that a year after quitting smoking the risk
gets down to a half, and two years thereafter it is as if one had never
smoked.”
-81-