عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Underestimating People of Specialty
Author : Dr. Hassan Abu_Arqoub
Date Added : 10-05-2023

Underestimating People of Specialty

 

There is no doubt that every person can determine right from wrong in his/her field of specialty. Of course, this is based on a set of rules and foundations on which that specialty rests. He/she also have the competence to determine the experts and the non-experts of that field.

One stunning matter of this era is that some unspecialized and unqualified individuals judge people of specialty. This isn`t new since similar it also existed in past times. For example, some questioned the knowledge of Al-Ghazali and claimed that he wasn`t qualified as a jurist. When this news reached Imam Sayooti, he gave a full answer and it read as follows:

"The ignorant who said that Al-Ghazali wasn`t qualified to be a jurist deserves to be severely whipped and imprisoned for a long time to stop similar people from daring to criticize this great Imam of Islam. His saying as such about this eminent scholar emanates from extreme ignorance and lack of religiosity, so he is the most ignorant of the ignorant and the most evil of the evil sinners. During his time, Al-Ghazali was called Hujjat al-Islam (An honorific title meaning "authority on Islam" or "proof of Islam) and the Master of Jurists. He wrote valuable books on Fiqh and the Shafie Madhab rests on his works. Al-Ghazali revised and edited the Shafie Madhab where he removed irregular Fatwas and weak sayings and summarized it (Madhab) in the books: Al-Baseet, Al-Waseet, Al-Wajeez, and Al-Kholasah. Moreover, the books of the two Sheikhs are adopted from Al-Ghazali`s books.

Accordingly, the person who said the above about al-Ghazali was controlled by ignorance, stupidity and sin. It is safer to ignore what he said and leave his punishment in the Hands of Allah.

The above text indicates that transgression against the scholars existed in the past, still exists, will exist and isn`t something strange since Prophets and Messenger (PBUT) were subjected to worse that by the incompetent.

Al-Sayooti described such person as "Ignorant" and "Stupid", so he is considered as an evil sinner. Therefore, from an Islamic perspective such person has sinned and must make sincere repentance.

Al-Sayooti suggests a solution for such an audacity by disciplining this person and applying a discretionary punishment embodied in "Whipping" and "Imprisonment" to be an example for others and avoid transgressing against the scholars. This punishment is also meant to prevent the spread of such ill behavior amongst the members of society and prevent other ignorant individuals from undermining the people of knowledge and specialty. However, this disciplining and discretionary punishment is within the jurisdiction of the Muslim ruler or the authorities representing him. This clearly shows that it is the duty of government to defend the people of knowledge and specialty.

Finally, Al-Sayooti seized this opportunity to clarify the grace-virtue of Al-Ghazali and described him as "Hujjat al-Islam". Here, Al-Sayooti is teaching us to defend the people of grace-virtue and never accept undermining them in any form, and this is the duty of all the members of society.

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

There are olive trees within the precincts of the mosque, and my father covers the costs of electricity, water, and other needs of the mosque. Is it permissible for him to take the olive harvest?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If trees and fruit-bearing crops are planted in a mosque for the mosque itself, they may only be spent on the mosque’s interests. If they were planted for the public way (musabbalah), that is, for the general public, then any Muslim who enters the mosque may eat from them. If the planter’s intention is unknown, they are treated like those dedicated for public use, wherever custom has so run.
It is stated in Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/p.295): “The fruit of a tree planted for the mosque within it is not freely permitted without compensation. Rather, the imam spends its equivalent value on the mosque’s interests. The tree left its planter’s ownership here without any verbal declaration because of the evident indication. The case of planting it for the mosque excludes planting it as musabbalah, in which case eating from it without compensation is permissible, and likewise if his intention is unknown, where custom has so run. The tree may be uprooted from the mosque if the imam sees fit. Indeed, if he makes the plot a mosque while a tree stands in it, the imam may uproot it, even if the endower included it within the endowment (waqf).”
The father is a donor (mutabarriʿ), so he is not entitled to take anything in return for his donation to the mosque.
The Ministry of Awqāf is the body that supervises the affairs of endowments, so it must be consulted and the Sharīʿah and administrative instructions regulating such matters must be considered. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Can a person required to give kaffarah feed it to their own family members?

The kaffarah must be given to the poor and needy who are not financially dependent on the one giving the kaffarah.
If a person feeds it to their own family members, it does not count as kaffarah, and their obligation remains unfulfilled.

My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on taking a medication tablet sublingually during the daytime in Ramadan?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
 
Taking a medication tablet sublingually (under the tongue) during the daytime in Ramadan does not invalidate the fast, since it does not reach the internal cavity (al-jawf) through an open passage.
 
However, if the tablet dissolves and any part of it is swallowed, then the fast is broken.
 
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

See More