عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Generalizing Judgments
Author : Dr. Hassan Abu_Arqoub
Date Added : 27-12-2022

Generalizing Judgments is one of the Leading Causes of Conflict

 

One of the biggest mistakes a man could fall into is generalizing judgments, and doing so is a signal of inaccuracy as far as judging things and people is concerned. Although generalizing is the first thing that crosses human mind, the wise person overcomes this dilemma by giving it further thought and arriving at a more precise result.

If a person bought some fruits and vegetables and after going home, he realized that they were of poor quality, he will immediately judge all greengrocers as cheaters. This reflects a high degree of injustice to other greengrocers. Here, the bad news is that this is what we do all the time. For example, when a woman discovers that her husband has been cheating on her, she would accuse all men of treachery and vice-versa. This leads to living in a sea of unfair generalizations, which aren`t accepted by reason and logic and, at the same time, are contrary to reality.

The question that arises here is how to handle such generalized judgments?

As a listener, one shouldn`t accept generalized judgments nor take them for granted. When your child tells you that all the other children go picnicking with their parents on Fridays, there is no doubt that this is inaccurate since many parents work on that day, some prefer to rest and relax while others conduct family visits and the like.

As a speaker, one should make sure not to generalize judgments. Thus, one should say: a greengrocer had cheated me, some husbands cheat on their wives and vice versa, some children go picnicking with their parents on Friday, and the like. This way is acceptable and accurate.

When something is said: "it may seem simple, but extremely difficult to apply." If we give it more thought, we would realize that generalizing judgments ruins many relationships and undermines the security of the country and the people. For example, a member of a certain clan kills someone from another clan, then the family of the killed attack the family of the killer and set their properties on fire. The key question that arises here is that what is the fault of the killer`s family? One individual committed the crime but all his family members were harmed as a result. Why does such thing happen? It is because the judgment has been generalized and every member of the killer`s family was considered a killer. This is the practice of the people of Jahhiliyyah (Pre-Islamic times of ignorance) for they used to kill many for one. As a result, Allah Prescribed Qisas (Retaliation in kind); "Eye for an eye", or "Retributive justice.") where the killer alone is punished."

The same goes in case a non-Arab killed an Arab. A judgment is generalized whereby it will be said that non-Arabs are plotting to kill us so it is allowed to kill them in self-defense. The same goes when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim. It will be said that non-Muslims are killing Muslims so Muslims must kill them first. All of this is due to generalization, which makes a person feel that his/her identity is at risk and then becomes driven to wage a sacred war to defend that identity although the root of the problem has nothing to do with the issue of identity in the first place. It is simply a fight between two individuals each of whom belongs to a certain religion or denomination.

This is where the role of the wise people come into play. They address the problem according to its actual size and keep it under control. In fact, Islam teaches us to deal with issues in this manner since Allah Says (What means): "No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another." [Az-Zumar/7], as well as, The Almighty Said (What means): "That man can have nothing but what he strives for;" [An-Najim/39], and He, The Most Exalted, Said (What means): "(Yet) is each individual in pledge for his deeds." [At-Tur/21]. As reflected in these texts, each person must be held accountable for his/her own deeds.

As Muslims, we experience the injustice resulting from generalizing judgments on steady basis since whenever a terrorist attack takes place in the west, western countries adopt tough positions towards Islam and Muslims. In a survey conducted by Prof. Mohammad Abu An-Nimer, it was found out that five thousand sources of the Library of Congress connect violence to Islam. 

As Muslims, we must portray the magnanimous image of Islam and never assume that the true beautiful image of Islam is self-evident. This is in addition to avoiding falling into the trap of generalizing judgments since the others aren`t essentially the same.

 

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on combining more than one intention in the prayer, such as combining the *sunnah* of wuḍūʾ with the pre-Dhuhr *sunnah*, or combining the *sunnah* of greeting the mosque (*taḥiyyat al-masjid*) with the pre-Dhuhr *sunnah*?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Combining two intentions in a single act of worship, which some jurists call the “overlapping of acts of worship”, has several cases and precise rules. These can be consulted in the books of legal maxims, such as al-Manthūr fī al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyyah by al-Zarkashī and al-Ashbāh wa’l-Naẓāʾir by al-Suyūṭī. Among the most important of these rules:
First: If all of the acts of worship that one wishes to combine under one intention are obligatory, the intentions do not overlap. An example is combining the intention of the obligatory ʿAṣr prayer with that of the obligatory Dhuhr prayer. The intentions do not overlap in this case.
Second: If the two acts are specified supererogatory prayers (nawāfil muqayyadah) that are aimed at in themselves because of a particular time, occasion, or cause, or if they are an obligatory prayer and a specified supererogatory prayer, the intentions again do not overlap. An example is the Duha prayer, which may not be combined with, for instance, the regular sunnah of Dhuhr.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm: “Whatever is not, in meaning, an absolute voluntary prayer, such as the Duha sunnah… is not subsumed under another. Rather, if he intends something else along with it… the prayer is not validly entered. This is because combining two obligations, two specified supererogatory prayers, or an obligation and a specified supererogatory prayer invalidates the prayer in cases not built upon overlapping, as ritual purification (ṭahārah) is.”
Third: If the two acts are absolute voluntary prayers (nawāfil muṭlaqah), or one of them is, where the texts of the Sharīʿah show that the aim of the voluntary act is to fill the time with worship, then overlapping of intentions is permissible. An example is the obligatory Dhuhr prayer together with the sunnah of greeting the mosque (taḥiyyat al-masjid). And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on forgiving a tenant next month's rent, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh al-māl?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It does not fulfill the obligation to count the rent owed on a house, or a portion of it, in lieu of zakāh. Rather, it is necessary to first transfer ownership of the zakāh amount to the poor person directly; only afterward may he be asked to pay the rent [from that money].
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 112): "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]."
We would also remind [the reader] of the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ: "The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim: he does not wrong him, nor does he abandon him [to harm]. Whoever attends to the needs of his brother, Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, will attend to his needs. Whoever relieves a Muslim of a hardship, Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, will relieve him of one of the hardships of the Day of Resurrection. And whoever conceals [the faults of] a Muslim, Allah will conceal him on the Day of Resurrection." (Agreed upon). And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on someone who fasts but does not pray?

A Muslim must be diligent in fulfilling all obligations, and after the Shahadah, prayer is the most important duty.
● If someone abandons prayer out of disregard, they are considered a disbeliever, and their fasting is not accepted.
● If they abandon prayer out of laziness, they are still a Muslim, and their fasting remains valid, but they have committed a grave sin by neglecting prayer.

Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?

 
 
 
 
 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More