23) Hanafi Fiqh Principles
Nafa` laazim is in itself an objective and the nafa` muta`addi is an objective by request (secondary)
The asl (original) is that a nafa` laazim is more virtuous than the nafa` muta`addi, because Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is instructed in the Aayat that when he is completed with the nafa` mat`addi, i.e. propagation, then he must engage in the nafa` laazim, which is casting his gaze and full attention towards Allaah Ta'ala. This context clearly illustrates that nafa` laazim is more virtuous than nafa` muta`addi, since the completion of the muta`addi is sought and the laazim. Thereafter the instruction for engaging in the nafa` laazim is issued, and also that it must be maintained and no distraction must be entertained. For example the Aayat, “Have an inclination towards your Rabb”, necessitates and is clear that if the nafa` muta`addi was more virtuous then its completion would not have been sought.
The nafa` muta`addi is the secondary objective, whilst the nafa` laazim is the primary and main objective. This assertion may be contrary to the mainstream view, but it is the reality anyhow.
I ask you, that if nafa` muta`addi was the objective in itself (primary objective), then what would be the plight of the harbi (one at war aginst Muslims) in daarul harb (area of those against Islaam) who accepts Islaam? If he is unable to carry out the nafa` muta`addi (propagation), what can he do? Must he hold on firm to the nafa` laazim (incline towards Allaah Ta`ala) or to nafa` muta`addi (propagation)? If carrying out the nafa` muta`addi was necessary then he would be faced with a dilemma which he would be unable to bear. And if he were to be instructed with the nafa` laazim, then it is clear that the nafa` muta`addi is not the objective in itself, because no Muslim will be deprived of (having to practice) something which is a maqsood biz zaat (objective in itself). Hence, the nafa` muta`addi is not the maqsood biz zaat, in fact it is the secondary objective (maqsood bil `ardh). A maqsood biz zaat is more virtuous than a maqsood bil `ardh. [Asgraful Jawaab, page 301, vol. 2]
A verbal form of reformation (islaah) is not sufficient for an active (practical) fasaad (act of immorality/mischief), in fact practical reformatory steps and propagation are essential
Only verbal islaah is not sufficient, in fact, practical (amali) islaah is necessary. Initially I had reservations regarding Nikah to widows, and why the Ulama were making an exerted effort at it. A second Nikah is not Waajib, or Fardh, it is only Sunnat. The Ulama say that it is Waajib to consider it as Sunnat. Why then were they so intent on being practical on this. For many years this doubt remained. Those were the days of youth, but Alhamdulillah, the understanding has dawned on me. Since this fasaad (misconception, in this case) was a practical one, the islaah for it also had to be amali. [Hasnul Azeez, page 678, vol.1]
The Medium And Cause Of Sin Is Also Sinful
Those things which are a medium to sin are also classified as sin. This is the reason why (unnecessary) speaking after Esha Salaat is forbidden in the Hadith Shareef. The reason for this, as recorded by the commentators, is that this will cause an interference in one’s (awakening for) Tahajjud and Fajr Salaat.
Those things which are ambiguous and unclear, leave them as ambiguous
One person asked whether the isaal-e-thawaab of Qur`aan Majeed will reach all the deceased in equal proportions (i.e. will all get the full reward) or will it be divided amongst them. The reply was that in ambiguous aqaaid matters, there is no need to give absolute or clear-cut answers. The method and system of the Sahaabah (radhiallahu anhum) was perfect, where they would leave ambiguous matters as they are. The Shariah has not deemed it necessary to dilate or expound on them (so why should we delve into them).
Similarly, Salaat and wudhu have been labelled mukaffirus sayyi`aat (compensators of sins)in the nass, so we need not delve into what extent they compensate for sins, etc. This is ambiguous in the nass, so we should leave them as such. They should not be clarified based purely on conjecture. Such things will be asked by those who wish to (Nauthubillah) question Allaah Ta`ala.
There is no scope for conjecture (zann) in matters of aqaaid. Yes, in fiqhi matters there can be, because fiqhi matters deal with deeds and actions. Students of Deen should remember this well. [Kalimatul Haqq, page 335]
[The Principles And Codes Of Law In Hanafi Fiqh, Moulana Ashraf Ali Tahaanwi رحمه الله]
» Posted by Seifeddine-M on 7th February 2012
0 Comments
|
