23354 Principles of Fiqh » Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings » Customs and traditions » Clothing, adornment and images      Why is it permissible to take pictures of trees and rocks even though they are the creation of Allaah? ar - en - ur | I am wondering why it is possible to take pictures of buildings and other things, which are not moving. As Allah (SWT) says: 'Who does more wrong than the one, who tries to create something like my creation? Let him create a grain of wheat or a kernel of corn'. Why Allah gives an example of unmoving things? Why not birds, or people? I'm afraid may be it means that we can not even take a picture of unanimated things also? Praise be to Allaah and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah. The majority of scholars say that it is permissible to make pictures of inanimate objects such as trees, buildings, etc, and they quote several texts as evidence for that, including the following: The report narrated by al-Bukhaari (5963) and Muslim (2110) from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said: “I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, ‘Whoever makes an image in this world will be told to breathe life into it in the Day of Resurrection, and he will not be able to do so.’” The prohibition mentioned in this hadeeth has to do with animate objects. What confirms this interpretation is that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him), who was the narrator of this hadeeth, issued a fatwa permitting the drawing of trees and inanimate objects, as was narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (2225) and Saheeh Muslim (2110) from Sa’eed ibn Abi’l-Hasan, who said: “I was with Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) when a man came to him and said, ‘O Ibn ‘Abbaas, I am a man who earns a living by the work of my hands, and I make these pictures (or images).’ Ibn ‘Abbaas said: ‘I will only tell you what I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, and I heard him say, “Whoever makes an image in this world will be punished until he breathes life into it, and he will never be able to do so.’’ The man became very upset and his face turned pale. He – meaning Ibn ‘Abbaas – said, ‘Woe to you! If you insist on making them (images), then you can make images of these trees and everything that does not have a soul.’” In Saheeh al-Bukhaari (5181) and Saheeh Muslim (2108) it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The makers of these images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it will be said to them: ‘Bring to life that which you have created!’” and he said that the angels will not enter a house in which there are images. This hadeeth indicates that the punishment has to do with images of animate beings, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that they will be told, “Bring to life that which you have created!” With regard to the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “Let them create a grain of wheat or a grain of barley,” what is meant by that is to show that they are incapable of doing so, because no matter what humans make that may resemble these grains or plants in shape, they can never instill in them the characteristics of these plants, so they cannot be planted and will never grow, and so on. If humans are unable to create a single grain with some of the characteristics that Allaah has created in it, then they are incapable of breathing life into the images and statues that they make. Hence it becomes clear that what is meant by the hadeeth is not that which may first spring to mind, that making images of grains and trees and inanimate objects is haraam, rather what is meant is to show that man is incapable as we have mentioned above. And Allaah knows best. Islam Q&A Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid |
|
Tuesday 28 February 2012
Why is it permissible to take pictures of trees and rocks even though they are the creation of Allaah?
Wearing neckties
Assalmu Alikem
Can you tell me what is the ruling in wearing ties. some people say it is haram and others say no. Please help and Elaborate. Jazak Allah khir
Praise be to Allaah.
The Muslim is supposed to be distinct from non-Muslims in his appearance and clothing, because this is what Islam says. Also, the Muslim should not wear anything that is the distinctive clothing of the kuffaar. With regard to neckties, if a person can do without them, this is better, but if he has to wear them there is nothing wrong with that, in sha Allaah – but he should make sure that they are not made of natural silk and that they do not have crosses or pictures of animate creatures on them. And Allaah knows best.
When it is permissible to use cosmetics? And the ruling on collagen in particular
There is something that is sold in the pharmacy in the form of drops, and it is called collagen. It is a substance that is used to cleanse and nourish the skin, and it is used as a face cream, and with continued use it can lead to swelling of the face. What is your opinion on using it?.
Praise be to Allaah.
In principle it is permissible for women to use cosmetics, but when saying it is permissible it is essential to pay attention to a number of things, such as:
1.
This beautification should not be for non-mahram men. The one for whom she should beautify herself first and foremost is her husband. If she uses cosmetics so that her husband will see her in the best shape, or she appears thus beautified before other women or her mahrams, that is permissible for her, because the basic principle is that she should cover all of her body in front of non-mahram men, so how can it be permissible for her to beautify herself for them in addition to that?
2.
The materials used for cosmetic purposes should be permissible, such as henna and kohl. It is not permissible for her to use fat from dead meat (i.e., from animals that have not been slaughtered in accordance with sharee’ah) or impure (naajis) substances, because Islam forbids using impure and haraam things. See the answer to question no. 45635.
3.
The materials used for cosmetic purposes should not be harmful to her body. It is not permissible for her to use harmful chemical substances, whether the harmful effect will occur immediately or in the future, because Islam forbids harming oneself, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There should be neither causing harm nor reciprocating harm.”
For more information on the ruling on powders and some of their harmful effects, please see the answers to questions no. 26861, 26799, 20226 and 22917.
4.
The cosmetic effect on the body should be temporary. It is not permissible for her to use those substances that change the creation of Allaah, as some women do by having lip treatments, face peeling and tattoos which change the colour of the skin permanently.
In the answer to question 34215 we have stated that face peeling is haraam, and that it is changing the creation of Allaah.
In the answer to question no. 47694 we discussed the ruling on cosmetic surgery, and we stated that some of it may be essential, so it is permissible, and some of it is merely for the purpose of beautification, and it is haraam, because it comes under the heading of changing the creation of Allaah. One of the examples we mentioned was face lifts.
If the conditions and guidelines mentioned above are met, then using collagen is permissible.
And Allaah knows best.
What is the ruling on wearing masks or costumes in the shape of animals at children’s parties?
What is the ruling on wearing a mask or costume in the shape of a human or animal, such as a bear and so on, to take part in children’s programs and make the children have fun?.
Praise be to Allaah.
Many scholars have granted concessions with regard to children’s toys, even if they are in the shape of an animate being, because of the report narrated by Abu Dawood (4932) from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) who said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came back from the campaign to Tabook or Khaybar and there was a curtain over her niche. The wind lifted the edge of the curtain and uncovered ‘Aa’ishah’s toy dolls. He said: “What is this, O ‘Aa’ishah?” She said: My dolls. He saw among them a horse with two wings made of cloth and he said: “What is this that I see in the midst of them?” She said: A horse. He said: “What is this that I see on it?” I said: Two wings. He said: “A horse with wings?” She said: Have you not heard that Sulaymaan had horses with wings? She said: And the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) smiled so broadly that I saw his eyeteeth.
And al-Bukhaari (5779) and Muslim (2440) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: I used to play with dolls in the house of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and I had friends who would play with me…”
This is with regard to toys and costumes, and there is a well-known difference of opinion concerning this matter. Some of the scholars forbade children’s toys if they are in the form of an animal such as a lion or tiger and the like, and some granted a concession allowing that.
See: Ahkaam al-Tasweer fi’l-Fiqh al-Islami, p. 241-261; Fataawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb by Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, tape no. 374, side A.
According to the view that costumes are permissible in general, if a person wears something that is made in the shape of a bear, for example, and he tries to imitate the way it moves and walks, this includes two things concerning which there are reservations: imitating animals and wearing an image or something on which there is an image.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said concerning contact lenses:
If they resemble an animal’s eyes, such as those look like the eyes of a cat or a rabbit or any other animal, that is not permissible, because resembling animals is not mentioned in the Qur’aan and Sunnah except in the context of blame. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And recite (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) to them the story of him to whom We gave Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), but he threw them away; so Shaytaan (Satan) followed him up, and he became of those who went astray.
176. And had We willed, We would surely, have elevated him therewith, but he clung to the earth and followed his own vain desire. So his parable is the parable of a dog: if you drive him away, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls his tongue out. Such is the parable of the people who reject Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.). So relate the stories, perhaps they may reflect.
177. Evil is the parable of the people who rejected Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses and signs, etc.), and used to wrong their ownselves”
[al-A ‘raaf 7:175-177].
And He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“The likeness of those who were entrusted with the (obligation of the) Tawraat (Torah) (i.e. to obey its commandments and to practise its laws), but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is as the likeness of a donkey which carries huge burdens of books (but understands nothing from them). How bad is the example of people who deny the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allaah. And Allaah guides not the people who are Zaalimoon (polytheists, wrongdoers, disbelievers)”
[al-Jumu ‘ah 62:5].
And the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The one who takes back his gift is like the dog that vomits, then returns to its vomit.” And he said: “The bad likeness is not for us.” And he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The one who speaks on Friday when the imam is delivering the khutbah is like a donkey that carries books.”
End quote from Fataawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb.
See also Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (32/256-260), where there is a detailed fatwa about the prohibition on resembling animals or imitating their movements or sounds.
Shaykh Dr. Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khudayri, a member of the Faculty of Imam Muhammad ibn Sa‘ood Islamic University (may Allah preserve him) was asked:
We are a group who work in children’s theatre and we offer useful programs in the park or in a theatre for children, where children and their parents come to watch us. We segregate men from women and the children sit in the chairs at the front. Some of the young people wear costumes in the form of a fox or bear or cucumber or orange. Our question is: is acting and wearing these costumes permissible?
He replied: If what you are offering in the theatre is a useful program aimed at benefiting children, and there is no mixing between men and women in that place, then there is nothing wrong with this action. But resembling animals is not something appropriate for the Muslim to do, because it is humiliating a soul that Allah has honoured with reason, and resembling animals is not mentioned in the Qur’aan or Sunnah except in the context of blame. If the costume of this animal is three-dimensional, it is not permissible because it comes under the heading of making images, which is forbidden in the texts. As for costumes resembling inanimate objects, there is nothing wrong with wearing them and using them.
From the Islam Today website.
It is not permissible to wear anything on which there is an image of an animal or human.
It says in Mataalib Ooli’l-Nuha (1/353):
It is haraam for both males and females to wear anything on which there is an image of an animal, because of the hadeeth of Abu Talhah who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is an image or a dog.” (Agreed upon)
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on wearing clothes on which there is an image of an animal or human. He replied: It is not permissible for a person to wear a garment on which there is an image of an animal or a human. It is also not permissible for him to wear a headcover or the like on which there is an image of a human or an animal, because it is proven that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is an image.” End quote.
What appears to be the case is that wearing something that is made in the shape of an animal is more contrary to sharee‘ah than wearing regular clothes like shirts and so on, on which there is the image of an animal.
Thus it is clear that there is no concession with regard to what you have mentioned about wearing a costume in the form of a human or animal, even if the aim is to take part in a program for children so that they can have fun.
And Allah knows best.
Ruling on praying with rolled up sleeves
I am reading Fatwa 11796, regarding the sleeves and searched for this hadith but couldnt find the relevant hadith. But as a contradiction, I found this hadith:
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 677: Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 72: Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
I saw Bilal bringing an Anza (a small spear) and fixing it in the ground, and then he proclaimed the Iqarna of the prayer, and I saw Allahs Apostle coming out, wearing a cloak with its sleeves rolled up. He then offered a two-Rakat prayer while facing the 'Anza, and I saw the people and animals passing in front of him beyond the 'Anza.
Please explain whether it is permissable to pray with your sleeves folded with evidence.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Rolling or tucking up a garment - whether that means rolling up the sleeves and baring the arms or rolling or tucking up the hem and baring the lower legs -- is all makrooh according to the majority of scholars.
Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is not permissible to pray with one's sleeves or garment rolled up and the like, or with one's hair braided or with one's hair wrapped up beneath the turban and so on. All of that is not permissible according to the consensus of the scholars, and it is makrooh in the sense of being discouraged and not proper. If a person prays like that, he has done something wrong but his prayer is valid. End quote. Sharh Muslim, 209.
In Fath al-Qadeer (1/418), which is a Hanafi book, it says:
It is also makrooh to pray with the sleeves rolled up, baring the forearms. End quote.
In Tuhfat al-Muhtaaj (2/162), which is a Shaafa‘i book, it says:
It is makrooh to wrap or tie his hair or roll or tuck up his garment, such as rolling up his sleeves or tucking up his hem, even if he only did that in order to work, or he is offering the funeral prayer, because of the hadeeth the soundness of which is agreed upon, “I have been commanded to prostrate on seven bones, and not to roll or tuck up my garment or hair.” The reason why that is not allowed when prostrating is that it is contrary to proper focus and humility. End quote.
In Kashshaaf al-Qinaa‘ (1/373), which is a Hanbali book, it says:
It is makrooh to roll or tuck up one’s garment. Some of the scholars mentioned the reason for this prohibition as being that the hair and so on prostrate with a person and it is makrooh to roll up the sleeves. This was stated in al-Ri‘aayah, for the mentioned reason above. If he does that - i.e., tucks up the hair and rolls up his garment and so on, because of some work that he was doing before the prayer, it is makrooh for him to leave them like that, because of what is stated above, and because of the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas, according to which he saw ‘Abd-Allah ibn al-Haarith praying with his hair braided at the back. He stood up and undid his braid. When ‘Abd-Allah had finished praying, he came to Ibn ‘Abbaas and said: What have you to do with my head? He said: I heard the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “The likeness of such a one is that of a person who prays when he is tied up. Narrated by Muslim. End quote.
But the Maalikis only regard that as makrooh in the case of one who does that for the prayer. But if that is how he was before he prayed, or he did that for the purpose of work, then it is not makrooh for him. The majority of scholars -- as stated above -- are of the view that it is makrooh in all cases.
In Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel by al-Kharashi (1/250), which is a Maaliki book, it says:
It is makrooh for one who is praying to roll up his sleeves or wrap them around his arm (if they are wide), because that is a kind of distraction from proper focus (khushoo ‘). That applies if he did that in order to pray. But if that is how he dresses or it was for the purpose of work, then the time for prayer came and he prayed like that, then it is not makrooh for him, as was stated by Ibn Yoonus, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to prostrate on seven parts and not to tuck up my hair or garment.” And he said that the prohibition on that only applies if one does that deliberately before praying. End quote. See al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 12/34
Secondly:
With regard to the hadeeth mentioned in the question, which is the hadeeth of Abu Juhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) who said:
I saw Bilaal bring out an iron-tipped spear and set it up, and the Messenger of Allaah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came out wearing a suit that was rolled or tucked up. He prayed two rak‘ahs, facing the spear, and I saw people and animals passing in front of the spear.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5768) in a chapter entitled: Rolling or tucking up one’s garment. He also narrated a longer version (no. 376) and it was also narrated by Muslim (no. 503).
Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Rolled or tucked up means that it came to mid-calf or thereabouts, as he said in the previous report: It is as if I can see the whiteness of his shins. End quote.
Sharh Muslim, 4/220-221
This hadeeth does not contradict what is mentioned above, and we can answer that in many ways, such as the following:
1.
It may be understood that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) tucked up his garment to show that it is permissible, and that does not contradict its being makrooh, because it is possible that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did some things that are makrooh in order to show that they do not reach the level of being haraam; rather they are makrooh only; therefore that action is not makrooh in his case (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
2.
It may be that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came out to his companions with his garment tucked up as it says in the hadeeth, then when he wanted to pray, he let it down and got ready to pray, but the narrator did not mention that and did not mention anything to indicate that this was not so either.
3.
The rolling or tucking up mentioned here does not refer to the sleeves, and it does not refer to rolling up the sleeves, as is the view of the author, because tashmeer (rolling or tucking up) does not apply only to the sleeves; rather it may also refer to tucking up the hem of the garment and so on. It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (12/32): Tashmeer (rolling or tucking up) may mean rolling or tucking up the izaar (lower garment or waist wrapper) or thawb (garment). End quote. And this is what is referred to here, i.e., tucking up the garment so that the calf or shin is uncovered. This is what is mentioned in the hadeeths, as in the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (3566): The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came out and it is as if I [the narrator] can see the whiteness of his shins - i.e., because he tucked up his garment and they became visible. Hence when al-Bukhaari narrated the hadeeth in a chapter entitled Rolling or tucking up the garment, al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said, commenting on the chapter heading: This means lifting up the lower part of the garment. Then he said: From this it may be understood that the prohibition on tucking up the garment when praying applies to something other than the hem of the garment. It is possible that this happened coincidently or that it was during a journey, which is the situation in which the garment may be rolled up. End quote. Fath al-Baari, 10/256
There are other scholarly views, but perhaps what we have mentioned here is the strongest and most correct of these views.
And Allah knows best.
Important note to learn to read quran online
There are many ways to improve the Quran recitation, here are some of themlisten quran online with tajweed , Quran Recitation Online When a Holy Quran Reciter or Learn Quran with proper understanding it helps you in understanding the complexities of the world and its daily life It helps you in making your life simpler to understand and easier to cope with. Recitation of online Koran gives your strength and knowledge to deal with different patterns of life. Reading Quran or Recitation of Quran doesn’t even gives you mental peace and calmness but if you recite it with complete understanding of what each verse is saying to you, you would find those verses a complete guideline for you to deal with your daily life problems and confusions. Prophet Muhammad said, so join the true path of knowledge and learn holy quran to bring purity to your life. And see Learning Quran blog more quranic article and join online quran teachers for quran memorization courses one on one
Thursday 16 February 2012
If a person has land and other property, does he have to pay zakaah on it?
If a person has land and other property that is not invested and that does not bring in any income or returns, does he have to pay zakaah on it?.
Praise be to Allaah.
No zakaah is due on this land and property unless he has prepared it for sale.
The way in which its zakaah is calculated is that its value should be calculated after one (Hijri) year has passed, then one-quarter of one-tenth should be paid as zakaah, i.e., 2.5%.
But if this property is prepared for a person to use, or he uses it for business purposes such as renting it out and the like, and he is not trading in it, then there is no zakaah on it in this case.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said, discussing the issue of zakaah on stores:
Trade goods refers to wealth that is prepared for trade. The dealer does not seek these goods for themselves, rather he seeks their profits. Hence we are obliged to pay zakaah on their value and not on the goods themselves.
So the phrase “trade goods” refers to anything that is prepared for trade, whatever type it is. This heading covers most of the things on which zakaah is to be paid, because it includes real-estate, fabric, vessels, animals, and everything else.
Zakaah is obligatory on trade goods, and the evidence for that is as follows:
1 – It is included in the general meaning of the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And in their properties there was the right of the Saa’il (the beggar who asked) and the Mahroom (the poor who does not ask others)”
[al-Dhaariyaat 51:19]
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Mu’aadh ibn Jabal when he sent him to the Yemen: “Teach them that Allaah has enjoined upon them charity (zakaah) from their wealth, to be taken from their rich and given to their poor.”
Undoubtedly trade goods are a kind of wealth.
If someone were to say that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “The Muslim does not have to pay zakaah on his slave or his horse,” our response would be yes, that is correct, but he did not say that there is no zakaah on trade goods that are not sought for themselves but are sought for their value. The phrase “his slave and his horse” refer to his own possessions, i.e., things that are his own property and that he uses and benefits from, like his horse, or his slave, or his clothes, or the house in which he lives, or the car that he uses even if it is for hire (i.e., a taxi). On all of these things there is no zakaah, because a person acquires them for his own use, and he does not acquire them in order to trade them in the sense of buying them today and selling them tomorrow. Based on this, whoever quotes this hadeeth to say that there is no zakaah on trade goods is making a far-fetched claim.
Secondly:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Actions are but by intentions, and each person will have what he intended.” If we were to ask the trader or businessman what he wants from this wealth, he would say “I want gold and silver.”
If I buy the goods today and sell it tomorrow and make money on it, the objective is not to acquire the object itself at all. Based on this, we say that zakaah on trade goods is obligatory according to the texts and according to analogy, even though the texts are not specific, rather they are general in meaning.
Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 6/141-142
Then he said, giving an example of that:
A man bought a car in order to make money from it (i.e., to sell it and make a profit from it). This is trade goods whose value reached the nisaab and he intended to sell it when he bought it, so he has to pay zakaah on it. But if he bought the car in order to use it, then it occurred to him that he should sell it, then there is no zakaah on it, because when he took possession of it, he had no intention of doing trade. So he has to have the intention of doing trade at the moment when he acquires it. If he buys something for the purpose of trade but it does not reach the nisaab, and he does not have anything else he can add to it, there is no zakaah on it, because one of the conditions of zakaah is that the wealth should reach the nisaab.
Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 6/142.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Land that is prepared for sale is subject to zakaah. The evidence for that is the well-known hadeeth narrated from Samurah ibn Jundub (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded us to pay zakaah on everything that was prepared for sale.”
But if the land is bought to keep, and not re-sale, whether it is intended for farming, housing, rental or whatever, there is no zakaah due on it because it is not being prepared for sale. And Allaah knows best.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 14/160
And Allaah knows best.
Charitable funding within a family
Some people formed a co-operative whereby each male, old or young, pays one hundred dollars at the beginning of the year, so that the money is saved in case any of them has to pay diyah (blood-money) or is faced with some other disaster. Do they have to pay zakaat on this money each time a year has passed?
Praise be to Allaah.
If the situation is as you describe, and the money does not go back to the person who donated it according to the proportion that he donated, but is now no longer owned by any one of them and is to be spent only for the purpose for which they donated it, then there is no zakaat due on it. And Allaah knows best.
Zakaat on vegetables and fruits
If one has a garden in which vegetables and fruits are grown for his own purpose, is he required to pay 'ushr on its harvest?
Praise be to Allaah.
Zakaat is not required on vegetables or fruits, because they are not measured or stored. Zakaat is, however, required on fruits that are measured and stored, such as dates, raisins, almonds, pistachios, But if they are not measured and are not stored – such as pomegranates, figs, peaches, melons and other fruits, and tomatoes, cucumbers and other vegetables – there is no zakaat due for them, because if they are stored they will be spoiled.
It was reported from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no zakaat due on grains or dates unless they reach the amount of five awsuq.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, Muslim and others. This is if they are measurable, so it is more appropriate that no zakaat should be paid on things that are not measured at all.
It was reported from ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib in a marfoo’ report – and some said it was mawqoof – “There is no zakaat due on vegetables.”
Moreover, neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) nor his successors (al-Khulafaa’ al-Raashidoon) collected zakaah for fruits and vegetables. Although they were grown in their regions, there was no zakaah paid on them. This indicates that there is no zakaah to be paid for these things.
And your garden is for your own personal use, not for business purposes, so it is definite that there is no zakaat required for the produce of this garden. But if it is for business purposes, and you keep the profit from it for one complete year, in this case you would have to pay zakaah on the money which you have had for one complete year. And Allaah knows best.
Zakat on money that is invested in trade
Asalamu Alaykum.
I have a certain amount of money. The whole amount is above the nisaab.
However, part of it is in the trade business. In calculating the current year's Zakat, do I have to include the amount that's not back yet from the trade; or should I only calculate the Zakat upon what I currently have with me at this point of time.
Jazakum Allahu khayran
Praise be to Allaah.
If one year has passed since you have possessed this wealth, you should pay zakaat on it, whether it is on hand or is invested in trade. If you have earned some profit on it, the zakat for that is due when the zakat on the original amount is due. And Allaah knows best.
Is there any zakaah on their house, shops and jewellery?
I want exact figure of zakat to be paid by us.our family consists of 3 brothers married having children and parents,living together.
1- We have big house in which we r residing,
2-we have second house of indian rs.
3 million value.3-we one business with capital of 2.5 million
4-we have shop of 4 million and we have some different assets of 1 million rs. having jeweellery worth one million rs.how much zakat we have to pay.
Firstly:
The Muslim does not have to pay zakaah on the house in which he lives – even if there is more than one house – or on the car which he has for his own use – no matter how valuable it may be.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
There is no zakaah on houses if they are for living in… but with regard to land, houses, stores and the like that are prepared for sale, zakaah is due on these according to their value each year when a full year has passed, regardless of whether their value has risen or fallen, if the owner has firmly resolved to sell them.
Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 14/173
Secondly:
There is no zakaah on shops and property used for business themselves; there is no zakaah on land or buildings or on the furnishings and vessels in the store, no matter how much they are worth, unless these things have been prepared for sale, in which case zakaah is due on them. This is what the scholars call zakaah on trade goods.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The basic principle is that everything that is prepared for sale is subject to zakaah, and things that are used in the shop are not subject to zakaah.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 14/183
The way in which the zakaah is worked out is:
The value of the goods that are in the store at the end of the year is worked out, then the zakaah is paid on them at a rate of one-quarter of one-tenth, i.e., 2.5 % of the value. See question no. 26236.
The scholars of the Standing Committee said:
Trade goods are those which have been prepared for sale and purchase of all kinds or property. Zakaah must be paid on them if their value reaches the nisaab of gold and silver, and the owner took possession of them with the intention of trading them. Their value in gold and silver should be estimated at the end of the year, in favour of the poor and needy. The basic principle concerning that is the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Spend of the good things which you have (legally) earned”
[al-Baqarah 2:267]
i.e., what you have earned by trade; this was the view of Mujaahid and others. Al-Baydaawi and others said: Spend of the good things which you have earned, i.e., the obligatory zakaah.
And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those in whose wealth there is a recognised right”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:24]
Trade comes under the general meaning of wealth, so there is a due which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) defined as being one-quarter of one-tenth. The wealth of trade is the most important kind of wealth, so it is more apt that it be included in the meaning of this aayah than any other kind of wealth. It was narrated that Samurah ibn Jundub (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to command us to pay zakaah on that which we had prepared for sale.” (Narrated by Abu Dawood)
‘Umar said to Hamaas, “Pay the zakaah on your wealth.” He said, ‘I only have some quivers and leather.” He said, “Estimate how much they are worth and pay the zakaah.” Imam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him) quoted this story as evidence.
It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “With regard to Khaalid, you have been unfair to Khaalid, because he is keeping his shields and weapons for the purpose of jihaad.” (Agreed upon). Al-Nawawi and others said: This indicates that it is obligatory to pay zakaah on trade goods, otherwise the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not have explained Khaalid’s excuse.
Al-Bukhaari and Muslim narrated a marfoo’ report from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) in which it says: “The Muslim does not have to pay zakaah on his slave or his horse.” Al-Nawawi and others said: This hadeeth is the basis of the view that there is no zakaah on wealth kept for personal use.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi and Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/186, 187
Thirdly:
With regard to the jewellery that you own, if it is gold and silver then you have to pay zakaah on it at a rate of 2.5% if it reaches the nisaab; the nisaab for gold is approximately 85 grams.
If it something other than gold and silver – such as rubies and coral – and it is worn as adornment, then there is no zakaah on it. If it is acquired for the purpose of trade, then zakaah must be paid on it.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Gold is the thing on which zakaah is due; as for precious stones and diamonds, no zakaah is due on them unless they are for trade purposes.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 14/121
The scholars of the Standing Committee said – in a fatwa that covers more than was mentioned in the question –
The fact that zakaah must be paid on coins – whether gold or silver – has been proven in the Qur’aan and Sunnah and by scholarly consensus. Trade goods are not sought in and of themselves, rather what is sought through them is coins, whether gold or silver. Matters are judged according to their purpose, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Actions are but by intentions.” Hence zakaah is not due on a slave who is acquired as a servant, or on a horse that is acquired to be ridden, or on a house that is acquired to be lived in, or on a garment that is acquired to be worn, or on chrysolite, rubies, coral etc that are acquired for use as adornments. But if all of these or similar things are acquired for the purpose of trade, then zakaah must be paid on them, because the purpose behind them is to acquire gold and silver coins or whatever is used in their place… Based on this, whoever withholds zakaah on whatever trade goods he has is sinning…
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 9/312, 313
The questioner says, “And we have some different assets of 1 million rs.” If these things are gold or silver, or prepared for sale, then zakaah is due on them; if what is referred to is things that are used such as cars, furniture, etc, then there is no zakaah on them.
In conclusion:
The questioner should evaluate the products that he has at the end of the year and add their value to whatever money, gold and silver he has, and then pay zakaah on the total amount, at a rate of one-quarter of one-tenth (2.5%).
And Allaah knows best.
Tuesday 7 February 2012
He vowed to give charity every time he committed a sin, then he committed sin but did not give charity
I had a problem with a sin, and one day after doing it I regretted it deeply and began to curse myself. Then I raised my finger and said, literally, “I vow that if I do this habit again, I will give five hundred riyals in charity, and if I do it another time I will give this amount in charity again,” i.e., each time I did it I would give five hundred riyals in charity. But I did it again, many times.
My question is: What should I do in this case, knowing that I have not even given a single riyal in charity yet, and I do not know how many times I did it, but it has been a long time? Please advise me, may Allaah reward you with good..
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Making vows so that one will not commit sin is something that was done by some of the salaf, in order to punish themselves and train themselves not to commit sin, but that was with regard to things that thy were able to do.
Harmalah said: I heard Abu Wahb say: I vowed that every time I backbit about a person I would fast for a day and that wore me out, because I used to backbite and fast. So I intended that every time I backbit about a person I would give a dirham in charity instead, and because of my love of money I gave up backbiting.
Al-Dhahabi said: This, by Allaah, is how the scholars were. This is one of the fruits of beneficial knowledge.
Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, 9/228
It is better for a Muslim to refrain from committing sin without making vows or oaths, so that he will not expose himself to breaking that oath or not fulfilling that vow.
Secondly:
If the one who makes a vow intends to prevent himself from doing a particular deed, then either he will break that vow or he will not. If he does not break it then he does not have to do anything. If he does break it then he is given the choice of two things: either to fulfil the vow or to offer kafaarat yameen (expiation for breaking a vow).
Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (13/461):
If he makes a vow to prevent himself or someone else from doing something, or to encourage him to do something, such as saying, ‘If I speak to Zayd, then I am bound to perform Hajj, or give my wealth in charity, or fast for a year,” this is a vow and the ruling is that he has the choice between fulfilling what he swore to do, in which case he does not have to do anything else, or breaking his vow. So he has the choice between doing what he vowed to do or offering kafaarat yameen. This is called a vow of desperation and anger, and he does not have to fulfil it. This is the view of ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Aa’ishah, Hafsah and Zaynab bint Abi Salamah. It is also the view of al-Shaafa’i.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen was asked:
I am a young man who was negligent then Allaah guided me, but I still commit some sins. I have tried to repent from them many times but I could not. I said to myself that I should vow that if I repeated this sin, I would fast for two consecutive months. But the Shaytaan tempted me and I said that the vow in this case is like a yameen (oath) for which kafaarah (expiation) may be offered. Then I committed that sin again. What should I do, may Allaah reward you with good? Is it permissible for me to feed sixty poor persons, because that is easier for me than fasting? Please note that Allaah has blessed me by helping me to repent from this sin now.
He replied:
Firstly: A Muslim should be determined, resolved and strong in resisting haraam things without swearing oaths or making vows, and he should do what he is obliged to do without swearing oaths or making vows. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“They swear by Allaah their strongest oaths, that if only you would order them, they would leave (their homes for fighting in Allaah’s Cause). Say: Swear you not; (this) obedience (of yours) is known (to be false). Verily, Allaah knows well what you do”
[al-Noor 24:53]
But some people may be incapable of controlling themselves so they resort to vows and oaths to make themselves do what they are obliged to, or to refrain from doing haram things. The scholars (may Allaah have mercy on them) mentioned that the vow which is intended to help one to refrain from something haraam or do something obligatory comes under the ruling of a yameen (oath). Hence the brother who asked this question has to offer kafaarat yameen as an expiation for this oath, by feeding ten poor persons, giving each one of them a mudd (or two handfuls) of rice or wheat, or clothing ten poor persons, or freeing a slave. He has the choice of doing one of these three things. If he cannot do any of them, then he has to fast for three consecutive days, because Allaah says in Soorat al-Maa'idah (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah will not punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masaakeen (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families, or clothe them or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days”
[al-Maa’idah 5:89]
With regard to feeding the poor, it is permissible to make food, lunch or dinner, and invite ten poor people to come and eat.
Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/501.
The number of expiations depends on the number of oaths
I am a mother and I swore many oath to make my children do things and sometimes the oath is broken. Should I offer kafaarat yameen (expiation for breaking a oath) once or what should I do?.
It is makrooh to be careless in swearing aaths, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And (O Muhammad) obey you not everyone Hallaaf Maheen (the one who swears much and is a liar or is worthless)”
[al-Qalam 68:10]
This indicates that the one who swears oaths a great deal is to be criticized, so try not to swear oaths too much, out of respect towards Allaah and so as to protect your oaths.
You should note that swearing oaths a great deal for everything, minor or major, leads to weakening the value of oaths and vows in people’s eyes, and there is no guarantee that this will not lead to making false oaths, and it also indicate that one does not fear Allaah completely.
With regard to the oath that you have sworn, they may be interpreted in one of two ways:
1 – When you swore the oath you meant to swear an oath, in whole or in part, i.e., you meant to swear a binding oath. In this case you have to offer kafaarat yameen. A binding oath is one which a person swears concerning something in the future, that he will do something or not do something.
2 – When you swore the oath you did not mean to swear an oath as such. This comes under the heading of idle oaths. The scholars differed as to the precise definition of idle oaths (laghw al-yameen). The most correct view is that the idle oath includes the following:
1- That which the speaker utters unintentionally, such as when a man says, “No, by Allaah, I will never go” or “Yes, by Allaah, I will go.” This is the view of the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis.
2- When a person utters an oath thinking that he is speaking the truth, then he realizes that it was not true. This is the view of the Hanbalis.
3- Shaykh al-Islam added to the definition of an idle oath cases where the one who swears the oath thinks that the one concerning whom it is sworn will not go against him, then he does go against him. By the same token a person does not break his oath if he swore that another person would do something by way of honouring him, not by way of compelling him. He said: Because it is like a command; a command is not binding if it is understood to be by way of honouring, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded Abu Bakr to stand in the row but he did not stand. See Majmoo’at al-Rasaa’il al-Fiqhiyyah by Shaykh Khaalid al-Mushayqih, p. 234.
Based on the above, if all or some of your oaths were binding, then you have to offer kafaarat yameen, but do you have to offer it once or several times? That depends on the content of the oath. If all your oaths had to do with the same thing, then you have to offer expiation only once. But if you swore oaths concerning a number of things, such as saying, “By Allaah, I will not eat today” and “By Allaah, I will not drink today” and “By Allaah, I will not travel today”, then you have to offer expiation for each of these things if you did it. If you ate and drank and travelled then you have to offer three expiations. If you swore one oath concerning a number of things, such as if you said, “By Allaah, I will not eat or drink or travel,” then you have to offer expiation once for doing one or all of these things. (op. cit., p. 266).
But if all or some of your oaths were idle oaths, then the majority of scholars have stated that no expiation is required for breaking an idle oath, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah will not call you to account for that which is unintentional in your oaths”
[al-Baqarah 2:225]
And Allaah knows best.
See also questions no. 45676, 34730.
Is it permissible to give money instead of a vow, ‘aqeeqah or waleemah?
Is it permissible to give money instead of a vow, ‘aqeeqah or waleemah (wedding feast)?.
Praise be to Allaah.
It is not sufficient to give money instead of what is required because of a vow, unless what was vowed was to give money as an act of worship to Allaah, in which case it is permissible to give the money as one vowed to do. But if a person vows to give all his wealth, he is only obliged to give one-third of it. Similarly it is not sufficient to give money for an ‘aqeeqah or waleemah (wedding feast) because the Sunnah regarding ‘aqeeqah is to slaughter two sheep for a boy and one for a girl. And the Sunnah regarding the wedding feast is for a man to give a feast after he gets married, even if it is with only one sheep, because of the saheeh report from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), according to which he said to ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf, after he got married: “Give a wedding feast, even if it is with only one sheep.” This is the Sunnah in these cases. Spending money instead goes against the Sunnah and there is no basis for doing that; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do that and neither did his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) after him. So we should adhere to that which is narrated in the Book of Allaah and the saheeh Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and not do anything else.
And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.
Delegating a charity organization to pay kafaarat yameen (expiation for breaking a vow)
I have a question regarding the kaffaarah mentioned in the eighty ninth ayah of sooratul Maa'idah, that the deliberate violation of an oath should be expiated by feeding ten poor persons the average of what you feed your own family, clothe them, free a slave or fast if none of these is possible. Would sending money through a relief group (Muslims serving Muslims) fulfill feeding the ten poor persons according to the standard that one feeds his own family? This is assuming that no money was extracted for administrative charges,there is money enough to feed the appropriate number of people, and that the people involved in the distribution of the food are of sound repute. If this is not acceptable what person would be acceptable as a "poor person"?
Praise be to Allaah.
If you cannot find any poor person who deserves to receive zakaah in the country where you live, there is nothing wrong with transferring the kafaarah to another country via a trustworthy person or group who can act as the agent of the person who is paying the kafaarah, so that it can reach deserving people of the categories mentioned in the aayah, under the conditions of kafaarah stated. But paying money instead of giving what is stated is not enough. The person who is considered to be poor or needy is the one who does not have enough of the bare necessities.
Important note to learn and Read Quran online
The Holy Quran is the word of Allah; it has been sent down to guide us and the guidance can online be gained through reading quran online. No other book can be like holy quran. As you come to the learn tajweed quran, Allah speaks to you and reading Arabic Quran is to hear Him, even to converse with Him, and to walk in His ways. So it is must for us as a Muslim to learn and do quran memorization by heart and the Quran tutor should teach the kids from quran qaida and then teaching quran online along with the quran tafseer and let the kids memorize quran so that we as Muslim could learn quran tajweed rules and then understand the quran tafseer It is the encounter of life with the Life-giver. 'God - there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting (by whom all subsist) He has sent down upon you the Book with the Truth ... as a guidance unto mankind ...' (Al 'Imran 3: 2-3 learn quran recitation). So we should always remember the guidance of Allah and we should be listening to quran online along with obeying the commandments of Allah so let us join hands to lean the Koran and let our kids do quran memorization and learn the teaching of quran education online and apply them in there life there is kids quran lesson available online as well
He promised Allaah that he would give up the secret habit then he did it again. What does he have to do?
I am writing this question with regret for what I have done and how I have fallen short in my duty towards Allaah. I used to do the secret habit (i.e., masturbation) and now I have given it up a short while ago. May Allaah help me to remain steadfast.
My question is: I used to say: “I promise you, my Lord, that I will not go back to this evil habit,” but I used to go back and do it again, not to make light of Allaah but because of the Shaytaan and my own whims and desires.
I hope that you can tell me what I have to do to make up for breaking this promise to Allaah.
Praise be to Allaah.
We have already explained in the answer to question no. 329 that the secret habit is haraam and how to rid oneself of this habit. The Muslim does not have to make promises and vows in order to give up the things that Allaah has forbidden to him. It is sufficient for him to know that it is haraam and that should be enough to make him give it up. If he makes a promise or a vow to Allaah not to do the haraam thing then he goes and does it again, then he has committed the sin of doing something haraam as well as the sin of breaking a promise or going back on an oath or vow.
Allaah has enjoined fulfilling promises, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fulfil (every) covenant. Verily, the covenant will be questioned about”
[al-Isra’ 17:34]
al-Jassaas said:
The words “and fulfil (every) covenant” mean – and Allaah knows best – that it is obligatory to fulfil the promises that one makes to Allaah through vows and promises to do acts of worship. Allaah has obliged us to fulfil them, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And of them are some who made a covenant with Allaah (saying): ‘If He bestowed on us of His Bounty, we will verily, give Sadaqah (Zakaah and voluntary charity in Allaah’s Cause) and will be certainly among those who are righteous.’
76. Then when He gave them of His Bounty, they became niggardly [refused to pay the Sadaqah (Zakaah or voluntary charity)], and turned away, averse.
77. So He punished them by putting hypocrisy into their hearts”
[al-Tawbah 9:75-77]
Ahkaam al-Qur’aan, 3/299
Al-Sarkhasi said:
Fulfilling promises is obligatory. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fulfil the Covenant of Allaah (Bay‘ah: pledge for Islam) when you have covenanted”
[al-Nahl 16:91]
And He condemns those who do not do fulfil their promises by saying (interpretation of the meaning):
“And of them are some who made a covenant with Allaah…” [al-Tawbah 9:75].
Al-Mabsoot, 3/94
Whoever makes a promise to Allaah to do something and does not do it, or makes a promise not to do something and does it, then he has committed the sin of breaking that promise, and he has to offer expiation for breaking an oath (kafaarat yameen), because a promise is a kind of oath or vow, and the one who breaks an oath or vow has to offer kafaarat yameen. He is given the choice of freeing a slave, or feeding ten poor persons, or clothing them. Whoever cannot do any of these things has to fast for three days.
Ibn Qudaamah said:
If a person says: I solemnly promise to Allaah that I will do such and such, then this is an oath in which the intention was to swear an oath to Allaah.
Al-Mughni, 9/400.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
Promises and vows are verily similar. If a person says: I promise Allaah that I will do Hajj this year, then this is a vow and a promise and an oath. If he says, I will not speak to Zayd, this is an oath and a promise but not a vow. But an oath is a vow when a person promises to an act or worship or an action by means of which he may draw closer to Allaah.
Al-Fataawa al-Kubra, 5/553.
This is also the view of Ibn ‘Abbaas, Maalik, ‘Ata’, al-Zuhri, al-Nakha’i, al-Shu’bi and Yahya ibn Sa’eed, as it says in al-Mudawwanah, 1/579, 580.
In conclusion: You have to offer kafaarat yameen for breaking your promise to Allaah. We ask Allaah to bless you with guidance, piety, chastity and independence of means.
And Allaah knows best.
He said to his wife: “You are to me like my mother”
A woman’s husband said to her: “You are to me like my mother.” Is this regarded as a talaaq divorce or is there expiation for it? What is the expiation?.
Firstly:
This phrase is not regarded as a talaaq divorce, rather it is a kind of zihaar [a jaahili form of divorce in which the husband says to his wife, “You are to me as my mother’s back”] which is not explicitly zihaar, rather it may be understood as zihaar or as something else.
Secondly:
The ruling on this phrase depends on the intention of the speaker (the husband) and the context.
As for the intention, if the husband intended by saying that that she was forbidden to him like his mother, then it is zihaar.
Or he may have meant that she is like his mother in honour and love etc, in which case it is not zihaar, and does not mean anything.
As for context, if the context of words and events that came before this indicate that the husband intended zihaar, then it is zihaar. Examples of such contexts are: if the husband was having an argument with his wife and during that argument he said, “You are to me like my mother.” This context suggests that he intended zihaar so it is zihaar,
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah was asked in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (34/5) about a man who said to his wife: “You are to me like my mother or my sister.” He replied: If what he meant was you are to me like my mother or my sister in terms of honour, then he does not have to do anything, but if what he meant was likening her to his mother or sister in terms of marriage, then this is zihaar and he has to do the same as the one who divorces his wife by zihaar: if he chooses to keep her, he should not approach her until he has offered the expiation for zihaar. End quote.
He also said (34/7):
If he meant when he said, “you are like my mother to me” that he would refrain from physical relations with her which are forbidden in the case of the mother, then this is zihaar and he is obliged to do what the man who divorces his wife by zihaar is obliged to do. It is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her until he has offered the expiation for zihaar, namely freeing a slave. If that is not possible then he must fast for two consecutive months. If he cannot do that then he must feed sixty poor persons. End quote.
Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (11/60):
If he says: You are to me like my mother, intending zihaar thereby, then it is zihaar, according to the majority of scholars, including Abu Haneefah and his two companions, al-Shaafa’i and Ishaaq. If he intended thereby to show honour and respect, or to say that she is like her in age or in some other way, then this is not zihaar. What matters is what he says about his intention. End quote.
i.e., the husband is the one who has to clarify what he intended.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (20/274):
If the husband says to his wife: I am your brother or You are my sister or You are my mother or like my mother, or You are to me like my mother or my sister, if he means thereby that she is like them in honour, family ties or respect, or he did not have any particular intention, or there is no context to suggest that he intended zihaar, then this does not result in zihaar and he does not have to do anything. But if he intended zihaar with these or similar words, or there is a context that indicates zihaar, such as these words being uttered in anger or as a threat to her, then it is zihaar. This is haraam and he must repent, and also offer expiation before he touches her. The expiation is to free a slave; if that is not possible then he must fast for two consecutive months. If he cannot do that then he must feed sixty poor persons. End quote.
To sum up:
If the husband intended zihaar by these words, or if there is a context that points to that, then it is zihaar. If it is other than that, then it is not zihaar and he does not have to do anything.
Thirdly:
Zihaar is haraam, and Allaah has described it as an ill word and a lie, and He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Those among you who make their wives unlawful to them by Zihaar (i.e., by saying to them “You are like my mother’s back,”) they cannot be their mothers. None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And verily, they utter an ill word and a lie”
[al-Mujaadilah 58:2]
The one who speaks the words of zihaar to his wife has to repent to Allaah, may He be exalted.
Fourthly:
The husband who divorces his wife by zihaar has to offer expiation if he wants to keep her and not divorce her and it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her until he has offered expiation. The expiation is to free a slave. If that is not possible then he must fast for two consecutive months. If he cannot do that then he must feed sixty poor persons. The evidence for that is the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who make unlawful to them (their wives) by Zihaar and wish to free themselves from what they uttered, (the penalty) in that case is the freeing of a slave before they touch each other. That is an admonition to you (so that you may not repeat such an ill thing). And Allaah is All‑Aware of what you do.
4. And he who finds not (the money for freeing a slave) must fast two successive months before they both touch each other. And he who is unable to do so, should feed sixty Masaakeen (poor). That is in order that you may have perfect faith in Allaah and His Messenger. These are the limits set by Allaah. And for disbelievers, there is a painful torment”
[al-Mujaadilah 58:3-4].
He vowed to marry a certain girl then he did not fulfil his vow
I vowed to Allaah that I would not marry any girl except this girl, and that if I married anyone else I would fast for three months. Then I found that I could not fulfil my vow, and I do not have any work so that I could feed the poor every day. What is the solution? May Allaah reward you with good.
Firstly:
What the Muslim should do is avoid making vows, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us not to do that.
Al-Bukhaari (6608) and Muslim (1639) narrated that Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us not to make vows and said: “They do not change anything, rather they are a means of making the miser give something.”
See also question no. 32724 and 36800.
Secondly:
The scholars (may Allaah have mercy on them) stated that vows are of several types, such as a vow that is intended as an oath, which is aimed at encouraging an action or avoiding it.
The ruling on such vows if they are broken is that the person is given the choice between doing that action he vowed to do or offering kafaarat yameen (expiation for breaking an oath).
Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (13/461):
If a person makes a vow in the sense of making an oath, to stop himself or someone else doing something, or to make him do something – such as saying, “If I speak to Zayd, then I must go on Hajj, or give my wealth in charity, or fast for a year,” then this is an oath, and the ruling thereon is that he has the choice between fulfilling what he swore to do, in which case he does not have to do anything else, or breaking his oath, in which case he has the choice of doing what he vowed to do or offering kafaarat yameen. This is called the vow of argument and anger, and he does not have to fulfil it… This is the view of ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Aa’ishah, Hafsah, and Zaynab bint Abi Salamah. This is also the view of al-Shaafa’i. End quote.
It seems that your vow to fast for three months if you did not marry this girl is of this type, because by doing that you intended to encourage yourself to marry her. This is an oath.
See also question no. 45889.
Kafaarat yameen (expiation for breaking an oath) is mentioned in the verse where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah will not punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masaakeen (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families, or clothe them or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths (i.e. do not swear much). Thus Allaah makes clear to you His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) that you may be grateful”
[al-Maa’idah 5:89]
See also question no. 45676.
To sum up: if you marry that girl, then you do not have to do anything. If you do not marry her, then you have the choice between fulfilling your vow of fasting for three months, or offering kafaarat yameen.
And Allaah knows best.
Is it permissible to swear a false oath in order to reconcile between two disputing parties?
Is it permissible to swear a false oath in order to reconcile between two disputing parties?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The basic principle for the Muslim is to be honest and truthful, and he should not speak anything but the truth, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O you who believe! Fear Allaah, and be with those who are true (in words and deeds)”
[al-Tawbah 9:119]
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I urge you to be truthful, for “Truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man will keep speaking the truth and striving to speak the truth until he will be recorded with Allaah as a siddeeq (speaker of the truth). Lying leads to immorality and immorality leads to Hellfire. A man will keep telling lies and striving to tell lies until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5743; Muslim, 2607, from the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him).
Reconciling between people is an important issue in Islam, one which brings a great deal of reward. There is also a stern warning against sewing discord between people. Because of the importance of reconciling people in the Muslim society and the seriousness of discord and conflict, Allaah has permitted lying in order to reconcile between people and to remove discord and conflict which may have negative consequences for the religious commitment of individuals and communities.
It was narrated from Abu’l-Darda’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Shall I not tell you of something that is better than fasting, prayer and charity?” They said: Yes. He said: “Reconciling between two people, for discord between people is the shaver.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, who said: this is a hasan hadeeth. And it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is the shaver, and I do not say that it shaves hair, rather that it shaves religious commitment.” End quote.
Whomsoever Allaah honours and enables him to reconcile between Muslims, if he needs to tell lies in order to reconcile between them, there is no sin on him for that, and it is not permissible to describe him as a liar, because the matter is serious; it is the matter of shar’i interests which means that in this case, lying is permissible, as it is narrated in al-Saheehayn from the hadeeth of Umm Kalthoom bint ‘Uqbah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that she heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “He is not a liar who reconciles between people, conveying good messages and saying good things.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2546; Muslim, 2605
As for swearing false oaths in order to reconcile between people, it seems that this is permissible.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
What is prescribed for the believers is to use oaths sparingly, even if they are true, because swearing oaths a great deal may cause him to end up lying, and it is known that lying is haraam, and if a lie is accompanied by an oath, it is even more haraam. But if necessity or shar’i interests dictate that a false oath be sworn, there is no sin in that, because it is proven in the hadeeth of Umm Kalthoom bint ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’eet (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “He is not a liar who reconciles between people, conveying good messages and saying good things.” She said: I did not hear him grant any concession concerning anything that the people say of lies except in three cases: reconciling between people, war, and what a man says to his wife, or a woman says to her husband. Narrate by Muslim in al-Saheeh.
If a person says in order to reconcile between people, “By Allaah, your companions want to reconcile, they want to come to an agreement, they want such and such,” then he goes to the others and says something similar, with good intentions and aiming to bring about a reconciliation, there is no sin in that, because of the hadeeth quoted above.
Similarly, if he sees someone who wants to kill another person unlawfully, or to wrong him in some other way, and he says, “By Allaah he is my brother,” in order to rid him of this wrongdoer who wants to kill him unlawfully or beat him unlawfully, because he knows that if he says that he is his brother, he will leave him alone out of respect for him, then he has to say such a thing in the interests of saving his brother from injustice and wrongdoing.
To conclude: the basic principle concerning false oaths is that they are haraam, except in cases where they will serve a greater purpose than lying, as in the three cases mentioned in the hadeeth quoted above.
End quote.
Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 1/54.