Marriage versus fornication

'The Big Chill?', a specially researched Time magazine cover story dated February 16 1987, startled the world with horrifying details of a new disease – AIDS. Since AIDS is infectious and fatal, it has produced a new breed of untouchables from whom both men and women flee in fear of their very lives. Publicity on the subject has created such a scare that barbershops in western countries often display signboards bearing the unlikely legend: “No Shaves Here.”

Government officials have described such a reaction as 'AIDS hysteria.' Barbers, however, maintain that even the AIDS victims’ perspiration, or drops of blood from tiny cuts made during shaving, can transmit the virus and that it is, therefore, necessary to keep away from them.

After making detailed investigations, Time's team of experts confirmed that the prime cause of this deadly disease is promiscuity.

Since it is transmitted mainly by homosexuals, it has come to be known as the “Gay Disease.” This disease spreads so rapidly that its explosion in the world of today has been geometric. Chilled by the fatality of AIDS, one of its victims exclaimed: “What will happen in this world, if we have to die when we make love? AIDS is the century’s evil.”

Promiscuity, euphemistically referred to as 'free love' in the western world, has brought down a curse upon humanity. It was estimated that by 1991, two hundred and seventy thousand (270,000) people would have contracted this disease in the U.S., and that doctors would find it impossible to treat such a large number of patients. The situation would be completely beyond control. The government has started an anti-AIDS campaign whose slogan is: 'Love carefully.' This same advice, differently worded, would read: 'Love within the bonds of marriage. Stop loving outside it.'

In the modern age, one of the great influences towards socially 'legitimising' promiscuity was D.H. Lawrence’s novel, Lady Chatterly’s Lover, first published in 1928. At the time of publication, this work was considered obscene and almost immediately banned. Then, with a gradual change of moral climate, permission was given to republish it in 1959. Many young people in America were deeply affected by this novel and, with a whole spate of similar literature having followed it, promiscuity began to be the rule rather than the exception. Now, once again, there is a public outcry to ban Lady Chatterly’s Lover and other such works.

Such a complete about-face has been caused by the devastating effects of AIDS. It has forced the west to re-think the whole question of free sex – a development which seems little short of miraculous. Swingers of all persuasions may sooner or later be faced with the reality of a new era of sexual caution and restraint.

People had been delighted at having discovered the key to unlimited enjoyment in freeing themselves from the curbs of religion, for, according to divine law, a sexual relationship between a man and a woman was permitted only within the bonds of marriage. But now the realities of nature are finally forcing man to forsake the path of free love and follow the path of sexual restraint. It has taken the fatalities of the final quarter of the twentieth century to convince people that divine law and 'the law of nature' are one. Too late, it has dawned on “free lovers” that promiscuity could be a killer. Time's cartoon, showing a man and a woman encircled by a deadly snake, epitomises one of today’s major human dilemmas.

It was not without good reason that the Quran, Allah's Book, commanded that sexual relationships should be confined within the bonds of marriage; it states what means: “…[Lawful in marriage] are chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers…” [Quran: 5:5]

This has been interpreted by Quranic commentators as a clear injunction to establish sexual relations only through marriage, and that there should be no extra-marital relationships. The Quran states what means: "…And those who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those their right hands possess, - for indeed, they are not top be blamed – But whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors." [Quran: 70:29-31]

Experiments have shown that this is the only right and natural way. Marital relationships and fornication are not just matters of approval or disapproval by religious authorities, but matters of life and death. The married state is a blessing for human society; any other is a curse; Allah says what means: "And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought." [Quran: 30:21]

Islamic doctrines and traditions which succeeded in institutionalising a solid system of sexual behaviour, arranging and shaping a unique Muslim perception of sexual relationships, has also shielded the Muslim world from being easy prey to AIDS. Yet, arguing that the Muslim world is largely AIDS free or that the epidemic has little presence among Muslims is a mere fantasy, a fantasy that could lead to disaster.

Most Arab and Muslim countries fall into the gap of the impoverished half of the world, a reality that is known to be a producer of many grievous phenomena, besides people's failure to guarantee a suitable home and nutritious food. Poverty in many parts of the world lays the foundation for extremely dangerous social illnesses such as prostitution, drug addiction and others. Such problems constitute a golden opportunity for AIDS to strike.

It is significant that the new education plan released by the U.S. government stresses sexual abstinence as a preventive measure. This public exhortation to observe the rules of old-fashioned morality is a clear indication of the superiority of divine law over man-made law.

A believer in Divine Law, who errs by entering into an illicit sexual relationship, and contracting AIDS in the process, will be considered to have deviated from the principles of divine law. However, one who belongs to western civilisation and contracts such a disease as the result of promiscuity will be said to have shown the error of the principle of western civilisation itself. The former case proves the error of man while the latter case proves the error of the principle of an entire civilisation.

Islam on dowry

The Real Gift 

Islam has legislated the giving of the dower by the husband to the wife in order to please the woman’s heart and to honour her. It is also meant to bring an end to what was done in the Days of Ignorance wherein she was wronged, exploited, despised and robbed of her wealth. The dower is a right exclusively for the wife. It is her possession and none of her guardians or relatives may share any part of it. No one has any power over her concerning how she wishes to dispose of it, as long as she does so in a legally acceptable manner. She may give it away as a gift, she may lend it to others or she may give it in charity or do any other permissible acts she wishes with it.   

The dower was instituted because the goal of marriage is not the actual act of the marriage contract in itself. In fact, the actual purpose of marriage cannot be achieved unless the spouses stay in a state of marriage. However, that may not be achieved unless the dower is an obligation at the time of the marriage contract itself. In this case, when there come times that may lead the man to divorce his wife, such as estrangement or coarse behaviour, the husband would not be willing to divorce his wife due to just the slightest act of rudeness that occurs. If it were not for the dower that was required due to the contract itself, it would be very easy for him to leave her.

Therefore, the goals of marriage would not be met as the goals and benefits of marriage are only met when the two are in accord and agreement with one another but that accord will not come about unless the woman is something honoured and special to the husband. But such honour will not come about unless he had to give up something important to him. This is because what is most difficult to achieve is most special to the person. Therefore, if the wife is not something special in the eyes of the husband, then he will dispose of her at the first sign of unhappiness, the accord will not occur and the purposes of marriage will not be achieved.

What we see happening in some European countries, and indeed some Muslim countries, is very strange indeed. This is where the woman is required to furnish a dowry or provide the furniture for their future house. This is definitely turning the natural order of things upside down and goes against the nature of mankind. It leads to a great deal of social ills and behavioural harm. It is a means by which the woman is despised and belittled. Indeed, she is ruined because of it. If the woman is not able to gather enough wealth together for marriage, she will not be able to get married and, instead, will have boyfriends and affairs, and other evil results.

Such a practice contains a great deal of evil and harm for the society; this practice may even bring about society’s end soon. There is a great difference between the case where the woman feels that she and what she possesses belong to her husband and where she feels that she is something desired and honoured, as the fiancé spends money on her and gives her presents and so on to get her as his wife.

One regrettable aspect of dowry-giving in recent times is that it is becoming more and more a matter of ostentation. Nothing could be more un-Islamic in motivation than this. Even the practice of performing a marriage quietly, without any flamboyant display of wealth, but subsequently giving a lavish dowry to enable the bride to set up her home is contrary to Islamic practice. It was certainly not the Sunnah of the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) (may Allah exalt his mention). Faatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, was his favourite daughter, but he neither gave her a lavish dowry nor did he send things to her home after the wedding, and even when she, may Allah be pleased with her, made a request to him for something of a material nature, he only gave her the benefit of his counsel.

Mahr (The Dower)

Islam has successfully maintained an even balance in society between men and women by giving its unequivocal endorsement to a practical division of labour, whereby women are placed in charge of the internal arrangement of the household, while men are responsible for its financing. The home is thus organised on the pattern of a microcosmic estate, with the man in a position of authority. The Quran is specified on this issue; Allah Says (what means): “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what [qualities] Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [in support] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard…” [Quran 4:34]

For largely biological reasons, women are well adapted to domestic pursuits while men, for similar reasons, are better suited to work outside the home. These physical and mental differences between men and women are, in practice, what underlay Islam’s division of familial responsibilities into internal and external spheres, with the woman dealing exclusively with the home and family and the man providing the funds.

Mahr Mu’ajjal (Promptly given dower)

At the time of the marriage, the groom hands over to the bride a sum of money called Mahr (dower) which is a token of his willing acceptance of the responsibility of bearing all necessary expenses of his wife. This is the original meaning of Mahr, although this custom has come to have different connotations in modern times.

There are two ways of presenting the Mahr to the bride. One is to hand it over at the time of the marriage, in which case it is known as Mahr Mu’ajjal, or promptly given dower. During the time of the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) and his companions, Mahr Mu’ajjal was the accepted practice and the amount fixed was generally quite minimal. The giving of Mahr by ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, to Faatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, who was the Prophet’s daughter, is an illustration of how this custom was respected. After the marriage had been arranged, the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) asked ‘Ali if he had anything he could give as dower in order to make Faatimah his lawfully wedded wife. ‘Ali replied: "I swear by Allah that I have nothing, O Messenger of Allah.” The Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) then asked: “Where is the coat of armour I once gave you?” ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, replied that it was still in his possession. The Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) then instructed him to send the coat of armour to Faatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, thereby making his union lawful. This then was the sum total of Faatimah’s dower.

Bribery Leads to Corruption and Destruction

If bribery spreads throughout a society, it will undoubtedly be corrupt and doomed to destruction. Man undertook the Trust that was offered to the heavens and the earth but they refused to bear it. Hence, it is obligatory on man to observe this Trust in the most perfect way that is required of him in order to win the pleasure of Allah The Almighty and reform society.

However, if the Trust is lost, it results in the corruption of the society and it becomes disordered and disunited. To preserve this trust, Allah The Almighty forbids His slaves from doing anything that could lead to its loss or decrease. Hence, AllahThe Almighty has prohibited bribery, which is spending money so as to reach something that is unlawful, either through giving the briber what he is not entitled to have or exempting him from what is obligatory on him. Allah The Almighty Says (what means):

• {And do not consume one another's wealth unjustly or send it [in bribery] to the rulers in order that [they might aid] you [to] consume a portion of the wealth of the people in sin, while you know [it is unlawful]} [Quran 2:188]

• {Devourers of [what is] unlawful.} [Quran 5:42] in the context of dispraising the Jews.

There is no doubt that bribery is unlawful as Ibn Mas‘ood, may Allah be pleased with him, said in his commentary on the aforementioned verse.

Bribery is a Grave Major Sin

Some scholars consider bribery to be a grave major sin, especially if paid to affect the judgment of a person in a position of trust. This is supported by a Hadeeth on the authority of ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Amr, may Allah be pleased with him, who said, “The Messenger of Allah  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) cursed both the briber and the bribed person.” [At-Tirmithi] This Hadeeth indicates that bribery is a grave major sin because it is known that only grave sins and evildoings deserve to be cursed.

Aspects of Bribery

Nowadays, bribery prevails in many sectors of numerous societies, to the extent that there is almost no area of life that is free from bribery, especially in third world countries. There is bribery in judgment such that the judge takes the side of the undeserving or prevents someone from having his right, gives precedence to the one who does not deserve to be preferred and vice versa, or is partial in his judgment to a relative or someone of high status - due to an unlawful bribe that he received. There is also bribery in implementing judgment. There is bribery in appointing people when someone pays a bribe to those who are in authority to appoint someone while there are others who are more deserving of the job than him.

Leaving aside the fact that this is unlawful and the consumption of what is unlawful, it is also betrayal of the Trust because the better and the more efficient person should be appointed to the job. Allah The Almighty Says (what means): {The best one you can hire is the strong and the trustworthy.} [Quran 28:26] Moreover, there is bribery in the field of education, construction and many other fields that are too numerous to mention here.

Effects and Harms of Bribery

Bribery is a crime that has grave effects and serious consequences on the individual and the society. We shall summarize some of them as follows:

1- Entrusting a mission to those who are not qualified to do it: When one pays a bribe to have a job that he is not qualified for, this leads to shortcomings in his work output and production and leads to the wasting of resources.

2- Destruction of principles and good morals: The spread of bribery in a society means the destruction of the morals of the members of this society, loss of confidence between them and the spread of bad morals like negligence, indifference, losing a sense of allegiance and belonging and the onset of frustration.

3- Wasting property and endangering souls: If one imagines that bribery prevails in a society until it reaches the sector of health and the production of medicine, what would be the condition of people’s health when they use bad medicines that were licensed through bribery? Imagine that one walks across a bridge that has grave defects that endangers people’s lives and properties and that the contractor who built it obtained permission to finish the work and construction through bribery.

How many casualties and financial losses would stem from the fall of that bridge? One should draw an analogy to this case in all fields. Hence, bribery leads to the wasting of money and endangering of souls.

The Difference Between Bribes and Gifts

There is no doubt that there is a resemblance between a bribe and a gift but the main difference between them lies in the intention and motive behind each of them, for the one who presents a gift seeks to win the love of others and their acquaintance and to show kindness to them.

Is a Gift Presented to a Ruler Considered a Bribe?

Many scholars are of the opinion that the ruler’s acceptance of gifts is a type of bribe. In a Hadeeth on the authority of Abu Humayd As-Saa‘idi, may Allah be pleased with him, he said,

The Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) employed a man from the tribe of Al-Azd named Ibn Al-Lutbiyyah to be a Zakaah [obligatory charity] collector. When he returned he said [to the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention )], “This is for you and this was presented to me as a gift.” The Messenger of Allah  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) then rose to the pulpit and praised Allah The Almighty and extolled Him. Then he said: “I employ a man to do a job and he comes and says this is for you and this was presented to me as a gift? Why did he not remain in the house of his father, or the house of his mother, and see whether gifts would be given to him or not? By Allah, if any one of you took anything unlawfully, he will come with it on the Day of Resurrection, carrying it on [his back]. I will not recognize any of you on the Day of Resurrection with a grunting camel, or a bellowing cow, or a bleating ewe.” Then he raised his hands till we could see the whiteness of his armpits. Then he said twice, “O Allah! Have I conveyed [Your Commands]?” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

An-Nawawi  may  Allah  have  mercy  upon  him said, “This Hadeeth clarifies that the gifts received by governors are unlawful to receive and an unfaithful act because it is a breach of their trust. The Messenger of Allah  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) clarified in the same Hadeeth why those who are in a position of trust are not permitted to accept gifts, unlike those who are not in the same position for in their case a gift is recommended. All that the governor receives under the name of gifts should be returned to the one who gave it. If it is not possible, it should be paid to the Muslims’ Treasury.”

Ibn Battaal  may  Allah  have  mercy  upon  him said, “The gifts of the governors should be put in the Muslim Treasury. The governor cannot own it unless the Imaam requests it for him.”

What is the Ruling on the One Compelled to Pay a Bribe?

What should one do if it is decided that the gifts that are presented to officials are a type of bribe, but the whole society is controlled by bribery and the governing regime is so corrupt that he cannot have his right without paying a bribe?

Scholars decided that in this case only, the bribed person is the one who bears the guilt, whereas the one who gives the bribe is free from liability. This is so if he does this to have his right or to ward off some harm that may afflict him, his religion or his property.

Therefore, if scholars issue a Fatwa (ruling) about the permissibility of paying a bribe in case of compulsion and state that the person who pays the bribe would not be held guilty, does this not indicate that a bribe is like stealing? Rather, it is worse because it ruins the consciousness of those in authority and drives them to wrong others for the sake of the briber. At this point, the regime will become corrupt and will be like a toy in the hands of criminals and unjust people who follow their fancies and possess money that they can pay to those who possess authority and public positions.

Associating partners with Allah (Shirk) -I

First: Major Shik

One of the most important things Muslims must know and pay attention to is the issue of Shirk (Associating partners with Allah in worship), its seriousness and its different types, so that our Tawheed (belief in the Oneness of Allah) and our Islam may be complete, and our faith may be sound.

The word Shirk in Arabic means taking a partner, i.e., regarding someone as the partner of another. It is used in Arabic when one wishes to express that he regards two people as equal in status; or that two people are involved in it.

In terms of Sharee'ha or Islamic terminology, Shirk means ascribing a partner or rival to Allah in Lordship (Ruboobiyyah), worship (Uloohiyyah) or in His Names and Attributes. 

A rival is a peer or counterpart. Hence Allah forbids setting up rivals with Him and He condemns those who take them (rivals) as gods instead of or besides Allah in many verses of the Quran. Allah Says (what means): “Then do not set up rivals to Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped).” [Quran 2:222] 

And (what means): “And they set up rivals to Allah, to mislead (people) from His path! Say (O Muhammad, to the polytheists): ‘Enjoy (your brief life)! But certainly, your destination is the Fire!’” [Quran 14:30] 

Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alahyi wa sallam said: “Whoever dies claiming that Allah has a rival, will enter Hell.” [Al-Bukhari]

The types of Shirk: 

The texts of the Quran and Sunnah (narrations of the Prophets sallallaahu alahyi wa sallam) indicate that Shirk sometimes puts a person beyond the pale of Islam and sometimes does not. Hence, the scholars divided Shirk into two types: major Shirk and minor Shirk. Following is a brief description of each type: 

1 – Major Shirk 

This means ascribing to someone other than Allah something that belongs only to Allah, such as Lordship (Ruboobiyyah), Worship (Uloohiyyah) and the Divine Names or Attributes (Al-Asmaa’ Was-Sifaat). 

This kind of Shirk may sometimes be outwardly, such as the Shirk of those who worship idols and graves, or the dead or even living people. Other times, it may be hidden, such as those who put their trust in other than Allah, or the Shirk of the hypocrites. For even though  their (hypocrites’) Shirk puts them beyond the pale of Islam and means that they will abide  forever in Hell, it is a hidden Shirk, because they make an outward display of Islam and conceal their disbelief and Shirk, so they are inwardly Polytheists but not outwardly. 

Shirk in the form of beliefs, such as: 

- The belief that there is someone else who creates, gives life and death, reigns or controls the affairs of the universe along with Allah. 

- The belief that there is someone else who must be obeyed absolutely besides Allah.

- Associating others with Allah in love and veneration, by loving a created being as loving Allah. This is the kind of Shirk that Allah does not forgive, and it is the Shirk about which Allah Says (what means): 

“And of mankind are some who take (for worship) others besides Allah as rivals. They love them as they love Allah.” [Quran 2:165] 

- The belief that there are those who know the Unseen that only Allah Knows. This is very common among some of the deviant sects.

- The belief that there is someone who bestows mercy in a manner that is befitting only for Allah, so he shows mercy as Allah does and forgives sins and overlooks the bad deeds of his 'worshippers'.  

Shirk in the form of words: 

Such as those who supplicate to someone other than Allah, or seek his help or seek refuge with him with regard to matters over which no one has control except Allah, whether the person called upon is a Prophet, a Wali (righteous person), an angel or a jinn, or some other created being. This is a kind of major Shirk which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. 

Also, those who make fun of religion or who liken Allah to His creation, or say that there is another creator, provider or controller besides Allah are included in this type of Shirk. All of these fall under major Shirk and are grave sins that are not forgiven. 

Shirk in the form of actions: 

Such as one who sacrifices, prays or prostrates to something other than Allah, or who promulgates laws to replace the rulings of Allah and makes such laws the reference which people are obliged to refer to for judgement; or one who supports the disbelievers and helps them against the believers, and other acts that go against the basic meaning of faith and put the one who does them beyond the pale of Islam. 

Conditions of Sale in the Islamic Economy

1. Consent:

A sale is not valid unless there is mutual consent between the two parties. In the Quran, Allah Almighty says (what means): {But only [in lawful] business by mutual consent.} [Quran 4:29]

But, how can the consent condition be met between the two contracting parties?

Scholars have three different opinions on how the consent condition is fulfilled in sale. This issue is important, given the new relevant fiqh-related issues in this age. For example, a person can now put coins into a soft drinks machine which, in turn, brings out what he wants. Is there consent here between the seller and the buyer? Also, a person can buy goods via visa card through the Internet. Is there mutual consent here?

There are three scholarly opinions regarding this issue:

a. Mutual consent can only be expressed by speech, through what is known as 'offer and acceptance'. This is a problem in this age of ours, for some large financial transactions are run in the stock market without verbal offer or acceptance. Instead, they are run through the computer which is connected to an international web, through means that have the force of verbal offer and acceptance, and even with greater force and better documentation.

b. Mutual consent should basically be expressed by speech, and it may also be expressed by action in the things that are frequently contracted. This ruling is issued out of tolerance on the part of some jurists who adopt the first opinion. An example of this is a person who gives money to a baker and he gives him bread while both of them are silent. Also, a person takes a taxi and pays the fare, which is known, while he is silent. Similar to this are the soft drinks machines referred to above. The Islamic jurists call such dealings mu‘atah. They maintain that the sale of such things as frequently contracted in daily life can be made via mu‘atah, without requiring verbal offer and acceptance.

c. Mutual consent can be achieved by anything that indicates it, whether by words or deeds. This opinion was held by Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah  may  Allah  have  mercy  upon  him who was exceptionally intelligent and was always ahead of events, as if he was living in a later age.

Another example is transactions made through the stock exchange, which occur in moments according to a system agreed upon between companies and contractors, which denotes consent. All these transactions are valid and there is nothing wrong with them. Moreover, this ruling – i.e. the validity of sale by mu‘atah through anything that denotes consent whether by words or actions – includes all forms that are not yet known to us and that will emerge in the future.

Prior to this, however, there should be an agreement between the companies and between the seller and buyer over a specific system that signifies consent, such as the visa number on the Internet, which represents its holder. If the buyer does not agree to the deal, he will not enter his visa number upon purchase of the commodity. In some other dealings, one may give this number over the phone, indicating his consent, and so on. What is important here is that there should be some means whereby this condition can be fulfilled between the contract's two parties. It is not necessary that the principle of 'offer and acceptance' be expressed verbally.

2. Rationality:

Scholars exclude, from the condition of rationality, the sale concluded by a discerning child regarding matters that are customarily accepted. For example, if a discerning boy says to his father: "I have sold our house to so-and-so," this is not valid. However, there is nothing wrong if he sells sweets in his father's grocery shop. This is valid according to custom.

A foolish person does not meet the condition of rationality, so his sale is not valid. A fool is such a person who disposes of his wealth in a way that denotes irrationality, and thus he should be placed under another person's guardianship. In brief, dealing should be conducted between two rational parties. If a question is posed regarding the dealing with a machine, as to how the condition of rationality can be met in such a deal, the answer is that the deal in such cases is originally with the company that uses the machine, which is a mere method for payment.

3. What is sold should be property:

Property is everything that is regarded, in Islam, as permissible and whose ownership is lawful. Everything that is declared unlawful in Islam is not accorded any respect and cannot be regarded as property and, thus, may not be contracted. Even if a person breaks or spills something unlawful, he is not held liable for this, according to the sharia. This is because such a thing is worthless, as is the case with musical instruments. The condition that the sold commodity should be lawful property is of great significance in contemporary dealings.

Examples of this include the following:

• Selling human organs, which is an active trade nowadays, for which international companies are operating through selling and buying in poor countries. Each commodity has its price. Is that right? In fact, that is not right, as organs are not property, but a gift from Allah Almighty.

But, there is an important point here. Namely, the Council of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia received a question on buying corpses for learning medicine, which is an urgent necessity. This is one of the important new fiqh-related issues that need Muslim scholars who are well acquainted about two things:

First: The general sharia-rules that form the framework of the Islamic sharia.

Second: Texts.

This is because understanding texts in the context of the sharia-rules differs from understanding them separately. The former manner produces a sound understanding, whereas the latter yields an erroneous understanding.

The senior scholars replied that it is not permissible to buy the dead body of a Muslim or use it for learning, given the inviolability of the Muslim. But, they said, it is permissible to use the corpse of a disbeliever for learning, in line with the principle of doing the lesser of two evils. This fatwa is correct, for a disbeliever does not enjoy the sanctity of the Muslim.

It is also not permissible to sell blood, for it is impure, so it is not property. Likewise, it is not permissible to sell dogs, for they are forbidden, and whatever is forbidden cannot be lawful property. However, some hold that it is permissible to sell dogs in cases where using them is permissible.

4. The sold item should be owned by the seller:

There has been a very common error as far as this condition is concerned. Many, or even most, people buy their cars and even their houses, among other things, by means of al-murabahah in some Islamic banks.

What is meant here is the sale of al-murabahah which does not meet the condition of the seller's ownership of what he sells. The seller here is the Islamic bank. It is not permissible for it to sell what it does not own.

For example, a person comes to you and says that he wants to buy the car of your friend and you say to him "I have sold it to you," intending thereby to buy the car from your friend and then sell it to that person who would say: "I have bought it." This contract is invalid, for the owner of the car may refuse to sell it to you. For this reason, the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) is reported to have prohibited such a sale, saying: "Do not sell what you do not possess." [Ahmad, Abu Dawood, An-Nasa’i, At-Tirmithi and Ibn Majah on the authority of Hakeem ibn Hizam]

When some Islamic banks sell cars or the commodities of other companies, do they sell what they do not possess?

It is known that when a client comes to the Islamic bank to buy a car, for example, the Islamic bank says to him "I sell to you," meaning that it sells to him what he chooses from among the cars offered in companies in the market. But, from where does the bank bring it? Does it sell what it possesses?

Some jurists tried to get the Islamic bank out of this problem through the following:

First: The client should promise the Islamic bank that he will buy the commodity; and the Islamic bank in turn should promise the client that it will sell it to him. Then, both parties sign the written promises. This signed paper means that the bank is yet to sell the commodity, but it has merely promised to do so after buying it, and the client has only promised to buy it from the bank.

Second: The bank should make this paper binding. When a person comes to the Islamic bank and signs the written promise of purchase, he becomes committed to completing this process. They should declare that this is not a sale contract to avoid falling into the error of selling what the seller does not possess. Rather, it is only a promise, and the Muslim is obliged to fulfill his promise.

Third: After this step, the Islamic bank gives the price of the commodity to the company in cash and then hands the commodity over to the client, by installments at a known profit. Thus, it guarantees that the buyer will not withdraw from the deal and also guarantees its profit from it.

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Ashqar wrote a treatise on the invalidity of such a dealing and the impermissibility of obliging the client to buy the commodity on account of his promise, for this puts the bank in a position similar to selling what one does not possess. He also said that a promise is not binding. He settled this issue by the question: Is a promise of purchase binding legally or religiously? In other words, if I promised you to buy a commodity, yet I did not, and then you file a complaint against me to the judge, will the judge oblige me to buy it? On the other hand, if I am not obliged by the court, will I be sinful for breaking my promise and thus have to repent?

He explained that the promise of purchase here is not binding, and that the Islamic bank is required to buy the commodity from the company and own it through a formal contract, bringing the commodity in its possession, and then it sells it to the client by installments and receives a profit from this. The Islamic bank should not oblige the client to buy the commodity for merely promising to conclude the deal, for this would actually be a sale, albeit in the form of a promise.

But some dodged this problem and adopted another method: The Islamic bank does not buy the commodity by a formal contract with the company. Rather, the contract is represented by possessing the commodity; and they only conclude the 'offer and acceptance' process over the phone. Then, the bank signs the sale contract with the client and sells it to him by installments. Thereafter, the Islamic bank completes the deal with the company.

This method is also not sharia-compliant. It is nothing but circumvention aimed at changing the form only, thereby distinguishing between the dealing of the usurious facilities companies and that of the Islamic banks. In an authentic hadith narrated on the authority of Zayd ibn Thabit  may  Allah  be  pleased  with  him the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allah exalt his mention ) forbade selling the goods where they are bought until the tradesmen take them to their houses. [Abu Dawood]

This means that a tradesman should have the commodity in his possession, after owning it, before he can resell it. The meaning of possession depends on the thing in question. It does not necessarily mean transferring the commodity to the place of the buyer, for the commodity may be planes, ships, or many cars, which cannot be transferred by the purchaser. What is intended here is that the commodity should become his property and in his possession. This can be done through official documents with a legal force, which prove that the commodity is now in the possession of the bank and registered in its name. In this way, even if the buyer withdraws from the deal, the commodity remains in the full possession of the Islamic bank.

We notify here that one of the forms of selling the commodity before possessing it is what sometimes takes place in tawarruq sale. For example, a person in need of money goes to buy a quantity of cement by installments and signs the sale contract. Then, he immediately sells the cement to a contractor at a lower price in cash – before possessing it. He may even not know where his commodity is situated. Such sale, in which the dealer sells the commodity before he possesses it, is prohibited. However, if the commodity is separated from the buyer and given to the purchaser, who then sells it to a contractor, then this is the issue of Tawarruq over which the scholars are known to have differing opinions. As some scholars deem it impermissible altogether, some others regard it as generally permissible, if the condition of possession is fulfilled. Still, other scholars regard it as permissible after first possessing the commodity, provided that there is a need for this.

We all remember that the crisis of Al-Manakh market took place because of the violation of this condition, i.e. possessing the commodity before selling it. Shares of illusory companies were sold on credit, with the purchaser desiring to resell them and receive profits until the fixed time for repaying the debt comes. What happened, however, was that this illusory market collapsed and the debts remained unpaid. As a result, the state shouldered a huge crisis that endured for years.

5. The seller should be able to deliver the commodity:

This is a fundamental condition, for if the commodity cannot be delivered, the purpose of the sale will not be fulfilled. For example, it is prohibited to sell fish while it is still in the water or birds while they are in the sky, or to sell a commodity that is located in a country at war, which thus cannot be delivered. This is all invalid.

6. The price should be known:

The price of the commodity should be fixed through seeing or describing.

7. The commodity should be known:

This happens by seeing it or knowing its description. For example, if a person says to another "I have sold you a car", and the other replied "I have bought it". This sale is invalid, for neither the car nor its price has been defined. Similarly, if a person says to another "I have sold you a car for five thousands." This sale is invalid too, since the currency has not been designated. The price should be fixed clearly. But, there is nothing wrong if it is commonly understood which currency is intended. However, on the internet, for example, the currency should be designated.

Seeing the commodity can be done through audio-visual media. This is enough with regard to buying commodities, if the medium is reliable. The buyer remains in a position to accept or reject the commodity if he finds it different in reality.

The Concept of Bid’a in the Islamic Shari’a

In the name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

Concept of Bida in the Islamic Sharia

There are few topics that generate as much controversy today in Islam as what is sunna and what is bida or reprehensible innovation, perhaps because of the times Muslims live in today and the challenges they face. Without a doubt, one of the greatest events in impact upon Muslims in the last thousand years is the end of the Islamic caliphate at the first of this century, an event that marked not only the passing of temporal, political authority, but in many respects the passing of the consensus of orthodox Sunni Islam as well. No one familiar with the classical literature in any of the Islamic legal sciences, whether Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir), hadith, or jurisprudence (fiqh), can fail to be struck by the fact that questions are asked today about basic fundamentals of Islamic Sacred Law (Sharia) and its ancillary disciplines that would not have been asked in the Islamic period not because Islamic scholars were not brilliant enough to produce the questions, but because they already knew the answers.

My talk tonight will aim to clarify some possible misunderstandings of the concept of innovation (bida) in Islam, in light of the prophetic hadith,

“Beware of matters newly begun, for every matter newly begun is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in hell.”

The sources I use are traditional Islamic sources, and my discussion will centre on three points:

The first point is that scholars say that the above hadith does not refer to all new things without restriction, but only to those which nothing in Sacred Law attests to the validity of. The use of the word “every” in the hadith does not indicate an absolute generalization, for there are many examples of similar generalizations in the Qur’an and sunna that are not applicable without restriction, but rather are qualified by restrictions found in other primary textual evidence.

The second point is that the sunna and way of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was to accept new acts initiated in Islam that were of the good and did not conflict with established principles of Sacred Law, and to reject things that were otherwise.

And our third and last point is that new matters in Islam may not be rejected merely because they did not exist in the first century, but must be evaluated and judged according to the comprehensive methodology of Sacred Law, by virtue of which it is and remains the final and universal moral code for all peoples until the end of time.

Our first point, that the hadith does not refer to all new things without restriction, but only to those which nothing in Sacred Law attests to the validity of, may at first seem strange, in view of the wording of the hadith, which says, “every matter newly begun is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in hell.” Now the word “bida” or “innovation” linguistically means anything new, So our first question must be about the generalizability of the word every in the hadith: does it literally mean that everything new in the world is haram or unlawful? The answer is no. Why?

In answer to this question, we may note that there are many similar generalities in the Qur’an and sunna, all of them admitting of some qualification, such as the word of Allah Most High in Surat al-Najm,

“. . . A man can have nothing, except what he strives for” (Qur’an 53:39),

despite there being an overwhelming amount of evidence that a Muslim benefits from the spiritual works of others, for example, from his fellow Muslims, the prayers of angels for him, the funeral prayer over him, charity given by others in his name, and the supplications of believers for him;

Or consider the words of Allah to unbelievers in Surat al-Anbiya,

“Verily you and what you worship apart from Allah are the fuel of hell” (Qur’an 21:98),

“what you worship” being a general expression, while there is no doubt that Jesus, his mother, and the angels were all worshipped apart from Allah, but are not “the fuel of hell“, so are not what is meant by the verse; Or the word of Allah Most High in Surat al-Anam about past nations who paid no heed to the warners who were sent to them,

“But when they forgot what they had been reminded of, We opened unto them the doors of everything” (Qur’an 6:44),

though the doors of mercy were not opened unto them; And the hadith related by Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“No one who prays before sunrise and before sunset will enter hell”,

which is a generalised expression that definitely does not mean what its outward generality implies, for someone who prays the dawn and midafternoon prayers and neglects all other prayers and obligatory works is certainly not meant. It is rather a generalization whose intended referent is particular, or a generalization that is qualified by other texts, for when there are fully authenticated hadiths, it is obligatory to reach an accord between them, because they are in reality as a single hadith, the statements that appear without further qualification being qualified by those that furnish the qualification, that the combined implications of all of them may be utilized.

Let us look for a moment at bida or innovation in the light of the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) concerning new matters.Sunna and innovation (bida) are two opposed terms in the language of the Lawgiver (Allah bless him and give him peace), such that neither can be defined without reference to the other, meaning that they are opposites, and things are made clear by their opposites. Many writers have sought to define innovation (bida) without defining the sunna, while it is primary, and have thus fallen into inextricable difficulties and conflicts with the primary textual evidence that contradicts their definition of innovation, whereas if they had first defined the sunna, they would have produced a criterion free of shortcomings.

Sunna, in both the language of the Arabs and the Sacred Law, means way, as is illustrated by the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“He who inaugurates a good sunna in Islam [dis: Reliance of the Traveller p58.1(2)] …And he who introduces a bad sunna in Islam…“, sunnameaning way or custom. The way of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in giving guidance, accepting, and rejecting: this is the sunna. For “good sunna” and “bad sunna” mean a “good way” or “bad way”, and cannot possibly mean anything else. Thus, the meaning of “sunna” is not what most students, let alone ordinary people, understand; namely, that it is the prophetic hadith (as when sunna is contrasted with “Kitab“, i.e. Qur’an, in distinguishing textual sources), or the opposite of the obligatory (as when sunna, i.e. recommended, is contrasted with obligatory in legal contexts), since the former is a technical usage coined by hadith scholars, while the latter is a technical usage coined by legal scholars and specialists in fundamentals of jurisprudence. Both of these are usages of later origin that are not what is meant by sunna here. Rather, the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is his way of acting, ordering, accepting, and rejecting, and the way of his Rightly Guided Caliphs who followed his way acting, ordering, accepting, and rejecting. So practices that are newly begun must be examined in light of the sunna of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his way and path in acceptance or rejection.

Now, there are a great number of hadiths, most of them in the rigorously authenticated (sahih) collections, showing that many of the prophetic Companions initiated new acts, forms of invocation (dhikr), supplications (dua), and so on, that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had never previously done or ordered to be done. Rather, the Companions did them because of their inference and conviction that such acts were of the good that Islam and the Prophet of Islam came with and in general terms urged the like of to be done, in accordance with the word of Allah Most High in Surat al-Hajj,

“And do the good, that haply you may succeed” (Qur’an 22:77),

and the hadith of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“He who inaugurates a good sunna in Islam earns the reward of it and all who perform it after him without diminishing their own rewards in the slightest.”

Though the original context of the hadith was giving charity, the interpretative principle established by the scholarly consensus (def: Reliance of the Traveller b7) of specialists in fundamentals of Sacred Law is that the point of primary texts lies in the generality of their lexical significance, not the specificity of their historical context, without this implying that just anyone may make provisions in the Sacred Law, for Islam is defined by principles and criteria, such that whatever one initiates as a sunna must be subject to its rules, strictures, and primary textual evidence.

From this investigative point of departure, one may observe that many of the prophetic Companions performed various acts through their own personal reasoning, (ijtihad), and that the sunna and way of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was both to accept those that were acts of worship and good deeds conformable with what the Sacred Law had established and not in conflict with it; and to reject those which were otherwise. This was his sunna and way, upon which his caliphal successors and Companions proceeded, and from which Islamic scholars (Allah be well pleased with them) have established the rule that any new matter must be judged according to the principles and primary texts of Sacred Law: whatever is attested to by the law as being good is acknowledged as good, and whatever is attested to by the law as being a contravention and bad is rejected as a blameworthy innovation (bida). They sometimes term the former a good innovation (bida hasana) in view of it lexically being termed an innovation , but legally speaking it is not really an innovation but rather an inferable sunna as long as the primary texts of the Sacred Law attest to its being acceptable.

We now turn to the primary textual evidence previously alluded to concerning the acts of the Companions and how the Prophet, (Allah bless him and give him peace) responded to them:

(1) Bukhari and Muslim relate from Abu Hurayra (Allah be well pleased with him) that at the dawn prayer the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to Bilal, “Bilal, tell me which of your acts in Islam you are most hopeful about, for I have heard the footfall of your sandals in paradise“, and he replied, “I have done nothing I am more hopeful about than the fact that I do not perform ablution at any time of the night or day without praying with that ablution whatever has been destined for me to pray.”

Ibn Hajar Asqalani says in Fath al-Bari that the hadith shows it is permissible to use personal reasoning (ijtihad) in choosing times for acts of worship, for Bilal reached the conclusions he mentioned by his own inference, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) confirmed him therein.

Similar to this is the hadith in Bukhari about Khubayb (who asked to pray two rakas before being executed by idolaters in Mecca) who was the first to establish the sunna of two rak’as for those who are steadfast in going to their death. These hadiths are explicit evidence that Bilal and Khubayb used their own personal reasoning (ijtihad) in choosing the times of acts of worship, without any previous command or precedent from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) other than the general demand to perform the prayer.

(2) Bukhari and Muslim relate that Rifa’a ibn Rafi said, “When we were praying behind the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and he raised his head from bowing and said , “Allah hears whoever praises Him”, a man behind him said, “Our Lord, Yours is the praise, abundantly, wholesomely, and blessedly therein.” When he rose to leave, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) asked “who said it”, and when the man replied that it was he, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “I saw thirty-odd angels each striving to be the one to write it.” Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari that the hadith indicates the permissibility of initiating new expressions of dhikr in the prayer other than the ones related through hadith texts, as long as they do not contradict those conveyed by the hadith [since the above words were a mere enhancement and addendum to the known,sunna dhikr].

(3) Bukhari relates from Aisha (Allah be well pleased with her) that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) dispatched a man at the head of a military expedition who recited the Qur’an for his companions at prayer, finishing each recital with al-Ikhlas (Qur’an 112). When they returned, they mentioned this to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), who told them, “Ask him why he does this”, and when they asked him, the man replied, “because it describes the All-merciful, and I love to recite it.” The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to them, “Tell him Allah loves him.” In spite of this, we do not know of any scholar who holds that doing the above is recommended, for the acts the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) used to do regularly are superior, though his confirming the like of this illustrates his sunna regarding his acceptance of various forms of obedience and acts of worship, and shows he did not consider the like of this to be a reprehensible innovation (bida), as do the bigots who vie with each other to be the first to brand acts as innovation and misguidance. Further, it will be noticed that all the preceding hadiths are about the prayer, which is the most important of bodily acts of worship, and of which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Pray as you have seen me pray“, despite which he accepted the above examples of personal reasoning because they did not depart from the form defined by the Lawgiver, for every limit must be observed, while there is latitude in everything besides, as long as it is within the general category of being called for by Sacred Law. This is the sunna of the Prophet and his way (Allah bless him and give him peace) and is as clear as can be. Islamic scholars infer from it that every act for which there is evidence in Sacred Law that it is called for and which does not oppose an unequivocal primary text or entail harmful consequences is not included in the category of reprehensible innovation (bida), but rather is of the sunna, even if there should exist something whose performance is superior to it.

(4) Bukhari relates from Abu Said al-Khudri that a band of the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) departed on one of their journeys, alighting at the encampment of some desert Arabs whom they asked to be their hosts, but who refused to have them as guests. The leader of the encampment was stung by a scorpion, and his followers tried everything to cure him, and when all had failed, one said, “If you would approach the group camped near you, one of them might have something”. So they came to them and said, “O band of men, our leader has been stung and weve tried everything. Do any of you have something for it?” and one of them replied, “Yes, by Allah, I recite healing words [ruqya, def: Reliance of the Traveller w17] over people, but by Allah, we asked you to be our hosts and you refused, so I will not recite anything unless you give us a fee”. They then agreed upon a herd of sheep, so the man went and began spitting and reciting the Fatiha over the victim until he got up and walked as if he were a camel released from its hobble, nothing the matter with him. They paid the agreed upon fee, which some of the Companions wanted to divide up, but the man who had done the reciting told them, “Do not do so until we reach the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and tell him what has happened, to see what he may order us to do”. They came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and told him what had occurred, and he said, “How did you know it was of the words which heal? You were right. Divide up the herd and give me a share.”

The hadith is explicit that the Companion had no previous knowledge that reciting the Fatiha to heal (ruqya) was countenanced by Sacred Law, but rather did so because of his own personal reasoning (ijtihad), and since it did not contravene anything that had been legislated, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) confirmed him therein because it was of his sunna and way to accept and confirm what contained good and did not entail harm, even if it did not proceed from the acts of the Prophet himself (Allah bless him and give him peace) as a definitive precedent.

(5) Bukhari relates from Abu Said al-Khudri that one man heard another reciting al-Ikhlas (Qur’an 112) over and over again, so when morning came he went to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and sarcastically mentioned it to him. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “By Him in whose hand is my soul, it equals one-third of the Qur’an.” Daraqutni recorded another version of this hadith in which the man said, “I have a neighbor who prays at night and does not recite anything but al-Ikhlas.” The hadith shows that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) confirmed the persons restricting himself to this sura while praying at night, despite its not being what the Prophet himself did (Allah bless him and give him peace), for though the Prophets practice of reciting from the whole Qur’an was superior, the mans act was within the general parameters of the sunna and there was nothing blameworthy about it in any case.

(6) Ahmad and Ibn Hibban relates from Abdullah ibn Burayda that his father said, I entered the mosque with the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), where a man was at prayer, supplicating: “O Allah, I ask You by the fact that I testify You are Allah, there is no god but You, the One, the Ultimate, who did not beget and was not begotten, and to whom none is equal”, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “By Him in whose hand is my soul, he has asked Allah by His greatest name, which if He is asked by it He gives, and if supplicated He answers”. It is plain that this supplication came spontaneously from the Companion, and since it conformed to what the Sacred Law calls for, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) confirmed it with the highest degree of approbation and acceptance, while it is not known that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had ever taught it to him (Adilla Ahl al-Sunna wa’al-Jamaa, 119-33).

We are now able to return to the hadith with which I began my talk tonight, in which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “. . . Beware of matters newly begun, for every innovation is misguidance”. And understand it as expounded by a classic scholar of Islam, Sheikh Muhammad Jurdani, who said:

“Beware of matters newly begun“, distance yourselves and be wary of matters newly innovated that did not previously exist”, i.e. things invented in Islam that contravene the Sacred Law, “for every innovation is misguidance” meaning that every innovation is the opposite of the truth, i.e. falsehood, a hadith that has been related elsewhere as: “for every newly begun matter is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in hell” meaning that everyone who is misguided, whether through himself or by following another, is in hell, the hadith referring to matters that are not good innovations with a basis in Sacred Law. It has been stated (by Izz ibn Abd al-Salam) that innovations (bida) fall under the five headings of the Sacred Law (n: i.e. the obligatory, unlawful, recommended, offensive, and permissible):(1) The first category comprises innovations that are obligatory , such as recording the Qur’an and the laws of Islam in writing when it was feared that something might be lost from them; the study of the disciplines of Arabic that are necessary to understand the Qur’an and sunna such as grammar, word declension, and lexicography; hadith classification to distinguish between genuine and spurious prophetic traditions; and the philosophical refutations of arguments advanced by the Mu’tazilites and the like.

(2) The second category is that of unlawful innovations such as non- Islamic taxes and levies, giving positions of authority in Sacred Law to those unfit for them, and devoting ones time to learning the beliefs of heretical sects that contravene the tenets of faith of Ahl al-Sunna.

(3) The third category consists of recommended innovations such as building hostels and schools of Sacred Law, recording the research of Islamic schools of legal thought, writing books on beneficial subjects, extensive research into fundamentals and particular applications of Sacred Law, in-depth studies of Arabic linguistics, the reciting of wirds (def: Reliance of the Traveller w20) by those with a Sufi path, and commemorating the birth (mawlid), of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) and wearing ones best and rejoicing at it.

(4) The fourth category includes innovations that are offensive, such as embellishing mosques, decorating the Qur’an and having a backup man (muballigh) loudly repeat the spoken Allahu Akbar of the imam when the latter’s voice is already clearly audible to those who are praying behind him.

(5) the fifth category is that of innovations that are permissible, such as sifting flour, using spoons and having more enjoyable food, drink and housing. (al Jawahir al-luluiyya fi sharh al-Arbain al-nawawiyya, 220-21).

I will conclude my remarks tonight with a translation of Sheikh Abdullah al-Ghimari, who said: In his al-Qawaid al-kubra, “Izz ibn Abd al-Salam classifies innovations (bida), according to their benefit, harm, or indifference, into the five categories of rulings: the obligatory, recommended, unlawful, offensive, and permissible; giving examples of each and mentioning the principles of Sacred Law that verify his classification. His words on the subject display his keen insight and comprehensive knowledge of both the principles of jurisprudence and the human advantages and disadvantages in view of which the Lawgiver has established the rulings of Sacred Law.

Because his classification of innovation (bida) was established on a firm basis in Islamic jurisprudence and legal principles, it was confirmed by Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, and the vast majority of Islamic scholars, who received his words with acceptance and viewed it obligatory to apply them to the new events and contingencies that occur with the changing times and the peoples who live in them. One may not support the denial of his classification by clinging to the hadith “Every innovation is misguidance“, because the only form of innovation that is without exception misguidance is that concerning tenets of faith, like the innovations of the Mutazilites, Qadarites, Murjiites, and so on, that contradicted the beliefs of the early Muslims. This is the innovation of misguidance because it is harmful and devoid of benefit. As for innovation in works, meaning the occurrence of an act connected with worship or something else that did not exist in the first century of Islam, it must necessarily be judged according to the five categories mentioned by Izz ibn Abd al-Salam. To claim that such innovation is misguidance without further qualification is simply not applicable to it, for new things are among the exigencies brought into being by the passage of time and generations, and nothing that is new lacks a ruling of Allah Most High that is applicable to it, whether explicitly mentioned in primary texts, or inferable from them in some way. The only reason that Islamic law can be valid for every time and place and be the consummate and most perfect of all divine laws is because it comprises general methodological principles and universal criteria, together with the ability its scholars have been endowed with to understand its primary texts, the knowledge of types of analogy and parallelism, and the other excellences that characterize it. Were we to rule that every new act that has come into being after the first century of Islam is an innovation of misguidance without considering whether it entails benefit or harm, it would invalidate a large share of the fundamental bases of Sacred Law as well as those rulings established by analogical reasoning, and would narrow and limit the Sacred Laws vast and comprehensive scope. (Adilla Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jamaa, 145-47).

Wa Jazakum Allahu khayran, wal-hamdu lillahi Rabbil Alamin.

©Nuh Ha Mim Keller 1995

This is the text of a talk given by Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller at Nottingham and Trent University on Wednesday 25th January 1995.