Abuz Zubair
9th March 2005, 04:47 PM
<div align="center">
ÈÇÈ ÇáÂäíÉ
[Utensils]</p>
</div>
<p dir=rtl>[Text]
áÇ íÌæÒ ÇÓÊÚãÇá ÂäíÉ ÇáÐåÈ æÇáÝÖÉ Ýí ØåÇÑÉ æáÇ ÛíÑåÇ¡ áÞæá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå
æÓáã: "áÇ ÊÔÑÈæÇ Ýí ÂäíÉ ÇáÐåÈ æÇáÝÖÉ æáÇ ÊÃßáæÇ Ýí ÕÍÇÆÝåÇ ÝÅäåÇ áåã Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æáßã Ýí ÇáÂÎÑÉ" ÑæÇå ÇáÈÎÇÑí æãÓáã
æÍßã ÇáãÖÈ¡ ÍßãåãÇ¡ ÅáÇ Ãä Êßæä:
1) ÇáÖÈÉ íÓíÑÉ
2) ãä ÇáÝÖÉ
æíÌæÒ ÇÓÊÚãÇá ÓÇÆÑ ÇáÂäíÉ ÇáØÇåÑ æÇÊÎÇÐåÇ¡
æÇÓÊÚãÇá ÃæÇäí Ãåá ÇáßÊÇÈ æËíÇÈåã¡ ãÇ áã ÊÚáã äÌÇÓÊåÇ¡
æÕæÝ ÇáãíÊÉ æÔÚÑåÇ ØÇåÑ
æßá ÌáÏ ãíÊÉ ÏÈÛ Ãæ áã íÏÈÛ Ýåæ äÌÓ æßÐáß ÚÙÇãåÇ
æßá ãíÊÉ äÌÓÉ¡ ÅáÇ:
1) ÇáÂÏãí
2) æÍíæÇä ÇáãÇÁ ÇáÐí áÇ íÚíÔ ÅáÇ Ýíå
áÞæá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ýí ÇáÈÍÑ: "åæ ÇáØåæÑ ãÇÄå ÇáÍá ãíÊÊå" ÕÍÍå ÇáÈÎÇÑí
3) æãÇ áÇ äÝÓ áå ÓÇÆáÉ ÅÐÇ áã íßä ãÊæáÏÇ ãä ÇáäÌÇÓÇÊ</p>
[Translation]
It is not permissible to use utensils of gold and silver for purification or anything else, due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu 'Alaihi wa-sallam: "Do not drink from gold and silver utensils, nor eat from its plates, for they are for the disbelievers in this world, and for you in the hereafter" – Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.</p>
The same ruling is applied to utensils soldered with gold and silver, unless the solder is of:
1) silver, and
2) very little quantity</p>
It is permissible to use the rest of the pure utensils</p>
It is likewise permissible to use the utensils of the people of the Book, as well as their garments, so long as their contamination with filth is not known.</p>
The wool and hair of a dead animal is pure.</p>
All skins of dead animals, irrespective of whether they have been tanned or not, are Najis, and likewise, their bones.</p>
Every dead animal is Najis, except;
1) A dead human being, or</p>
2) A dead sea-animal</p>
This is due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu 'alaihi wa-sallam about sea water: "Its water is Tahoor, and its dead is Halal". Al-Bukhari declared it to be Sahih.</p>
3) A dead bloodless animal, as long as it does not originate from Najasat (filth).</p>
[Explanation]</p>
After discussing the types of water, the author then discusses the rulings pertaining to the utensils, since one usually requires utensils to perform ritual purification. While discussing utensils made of gold and silver, the author also mentions a list of other substances along with their state of being Najis or Tahir.</p>
* The author states: “It is not permissible to use utensils of gold and silver for purification or anything else, due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu 'Alaihi wa-sallam: "Do not drink from gold and silver utensils, nor eat from its plates, for they are for the disbelievers in this world, and for you in the hereafter"”</p>
The aforementioned Hadeeth is agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim.</p>
The author uses the Hadeeth to establish the prohibition on the usage of all gold and silver utensils, for purification or any other purpose, because the wording of the Hadeeth clearly states “Do not..” which is understood to be for ‘prohibition’ in Usul al-Fiqh.</p>
Although, the wording of the Hadeeth is specific to drinking and eating using gold and silver utensils, the scholars argue that it is still applicable to general usage of such utensils, and not just eating and drinking. This is because the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam – pointed to its generality by saying: “for they are for the disbelievers in this world, and for you in the hereafter”. Since, it is known that the disbelievers utilise such utensils for all purposes including eating and drinking, therefore the Muslims are not allowed to use such utensils for any purposes in this world.</p>
We must also note that this prohibition is applicable to both men and women equally, unlike the prohibition of wearing gold and silver jewellery, for that is allowed for women while prohibited for men, by scholarly consensus.</p>
There arises another issue, which is: If one utilises a gold or silver utensil for purification, is his Taharah valid such that he becomes ritually purified, or does he still remain in the state of Hadath?</p>
There are two Wajhs amongst our scholars (i.e. Hanbalis):
1) His Taharah is valid, and this is the Madhab, as well as the opinion of al-Khiraqi, the author, Burham al-Din Ibn Muflih and others.
2) His Taharah is not valid and he remains in the state of Hadath. This is the opinion of Abu Bakr al-Khallal, Abu al-Wafa ibn ‘Aqil, Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah, and others.</p>
* The author then states: “The same ruling is applied to utensils soldered with gold and silver”</p>
Meaning: just as it is prohibited to use gold and silver utensils, it is also prohibited to use utensils soldered with gold and silver, since using such soldered utensils can easily be termed ‘using gold and silver’. However, the author then mentions an exception to the rule by saying:</p>
* “unless the solder is of:
1) silver, and
2) very little quantity”</p>
Hence, the only case where one is allowed to use such soldered utensils, is when the solder is strictly of verily little quantity – as needed – of silver and not gold. This is because al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih that the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – fixed one of his broken utensils with the solder of silver. It is derived from this Hadeeth that the only exception to the rule is a very little quantity of silver as needed, where as gold or unnecessary usage or amount of silver remains prohibited due to the generality of the Prophet’s statement: “Do not drink from gold and silver utensils”.</p>
A third condition which the author didn’t mention here, is what he mentions in al-Muqni’ – the book that comes after al-‘Umdah – is that one must not touch the silver soldering while using the utensil. However, if the usage of such utensil requires one to touch the silver soldering, then there is nothing wrong with that.</p>
* The author then says: “It is permissible to use the rest of the pure utensils”</p>
The rest of the pure utensils other than gold and silver include all utensils irrespective of whether they are precious or not. Therefore, it is permissible to use utensils made of precious elements that might be more expensive than gold and silver, just as it is permissible to use utensils made of not-so-precious elements, such as wood, plastic etc.</p>
The reasons for the permissibility here is:
1) It is authentically narrated in various authentic reports, collected by al-Bukhari, that the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam made Wudu from various types of utensils from stone to brass.
2) There is no legal text prohibiting the usage of utensils other than gold and silver, and therefore, they remain on the original ruling of permissibility; since all objects are permissible in origin, until they are declared prohibited by a legal text.</p>
Here comes a question, that why is it prohibited to use gold and silver utensils, while it is permitted to use other utensils, even if made of elements more precious and expensive than gold and silver? Shouldn’t utensils made of precious elements be prohibited due to ‘analogical deduction’ (Qiyas) from gold and silver utensils?</p>
The response to that would be, that the utensils made of precious elements cannot be given the same ruling as gold and silver utensils through ‘analogical deduction’ (Qiyas), since the ‘effective cause’ (‘Illa) in the prohibition of gold and silver utensils is not determined.</p>
‘Analogical deduction’ can only be performed if the ‘effective cause’ (‘Illah) in prohibition or permissibility is known. For example, the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – prohibited consumption of alcohol and explicitly stated the reason, or the ‘effective cause’ (‘Illah) of its prohibition in the Hadeeth: “Every intoxicant is Khamr (wine) and every Khamr is forbidden”.</p>
Based on our knowledge of the prohibition of alcohol along with the ‘effective cause’ of prohibition, which is the intoxication, we can apply the ruling of prohibition on any substance that contains the same ‘effective cause’, such as marijuana.</p>
In the case of the prohibition of gold and silver utensils, since the ‘effective cause’ is not determined, we are not able to apply ‘analogical deduction’ (Qiyas) to other objects, irrespective of whether they are expensive or not.</p>
The difference between ‘Wisdom’ (Hikmah) and the ‘Effective Cause’ (‘Illah)
Many scholars often state the wisdom behind prohibition of using gold and silver utensils, which is to prevent the poor from becoming saddened upon seeing the rich utilising gold and silver utensils. Such may well be the wisdom behind such prohibition; however, ‘wisdom’ is still not regarded to be the ‘effective cause’ for a ruling.</p>
An example that clearly distinguishes between Hikmah and ‘Illah is that of the prohibition of usury, where the wisdom behind such prohibition is to protect the poor from the opportunists amongst the rich; where as the ‘effective cause’ behind the prohibition is merely ‘interest based loan’, whereby the borrower returns more than what he initially borrowed.</p>
However, if the borrower becomes happy with such usurious transaction and does not consider himself oppressed or being taken advantage of, the transaction still remains usury, and therefore prohibited. This example shows that the ‘effective cause’ of the prohibition in this transaction is not Hikmah, rather it is ‘Illah.</p>
Even the secular laws see this division between Hikmah and ‘Illah. For example, the wisdom behind stopping at the red light is to prevent road accidents. The ‘effective cause’ behind stopping at the red light, is simply the red light, even if the driver cannot see any other car in sight for miles.</p>
The reason why I decided to elaborate on this point is that nowadays there many educated ‘scholars’ with modernist/secular approach to Islamic Fiqh, who endeavour to unrestrictedly open up the doors of Ijtihad and question every single principle the Muslims have agreed upon for the last 1400 years. Their approach has resulted in many of the prohibitions turning into permissibilities, such as the Riba banks, insurance, polygamy and other issues of great concern to modernists.</p>
* The author then says: “It is likewise permissible to use the utensils of the people of the Book, as well as their garments, so long as their contamination with filth is not known.”</p>
People of the book are the Jews who were blessed with Torah and the Christians who were blessed with the Gospel.</p>
The author says that it is permissible to use their utensils, so long as one does not know of their contamination with Najis. This is the Madhab without doubt and the opinion of the vast majority of Hanbalis.</p>
However, the term ‘people of the book’ in our context refers to those who do not eat dead meat and those whose slaughtered meat we are allowed to eat. Based on this, we can categorise the utensils as follows:</p>
1) Utensils we can use without washing, that belong to Jews or Christians who do not eat swine nor un-slaughtered meat.
2) Utensils we cannot use except after washing, that belong to those Christians or members of other religions who eat dead meat, or whose slaughtered meat we cannot eat.
3) Utensils we may use without washing, that belong to those listed above in the second category, but it is not known whether they ever used those utensils or not. In this case, as the principle of 'certainty verses doubts' dictates that we regard the utensils to be Tahir which is its original state.</p>
This is how we reconcile between various reports from the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam, some indicating permissibility while others indicated prohibition of using utensils of the people of the book.</p>
As far as the garments of the people of the book are concerned, then they could also be categorised as follows:</p>
1) Garments made by the disbelievers, but never worn by them, and their ruling is that they are Tahir by agreement of scholars.
2) Outer-garments worn by the disbelievers that do not come in contact with their private parts, and the ruling concerning them is that they are also Tahir.
3) Under garments worn by disbelievers that come in contact with their private parts. The scholars have differed over the ruling concerning such garments, some saying, including Imam Ahmad, that one should wash them first, since the disbelievers do not have the concept of Taharah and Najasah in their acts of worship; while others say that all garments in origin are Tahir, and they cannot be declared otherwise based on doubt.</p>
</p>
ÈÇÈ ÇáÂäíÉ
[Utensils]</p>
</div>
<p dir=rtl>[Text]
áÇ íÌæÒ ÇÓÊÚãÇá ÂäíÉ ÇáÐåÈ æÇáÝÖÉ Ýí ØåÇÑÉ æáÇ ÛíÑåÇ¡ áÞæá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå
æÓáã: "áÇ ÊÔÑÈæÇ Ýí ÂäíÉ ÇáÐåÈ æÇáÝÖÉ æáÇ ÊÃßáæÇ Ýí ÕÍÇÆÝåÇ ÝÅäåÇ áåã Ýí ÇáÏäíÇ æáßã Ýí ÇáÂÎÑÉ" ÑæÇå ÇáÈÎÇÑí æãÓáã
æÍßã ÇáãÖÈ¡ ÍßãåãÇ¡ ÅáÇ Ãä Êßæä:
1) ÇáÖÈÉ íÓíÑÉ
2) ãä ÇáÝÖÉ
æíÌæÒ ÇÓÊÚãÇá ÓÇÆÑ ÇáÂäíÉ ÇáØÇåÑ æÇÊÎÇÐåÇ¡
æÇÓÊÚãÇá ÃæÇäí Ãåá ÇáßÊÇÈ æËíÇÈåã¡ ãÇ áã ÊÚáã äÌÇÓÊåÇ¡
æÕæÝ ÇáãíÊÉ æÔÚÑåÇ ØÇåÑ
æßá ÌáÏ ãíÊÉ ÏÈÛ Ãæ áã íÏÈÛ Ýåæ äÌÓ æßÐáß ÚÙÇãåÇ
æßá ãíÊÉ äÌÓÉ¡ ÅáÇ:
1) ÇáÂÏãí
2) æÍíæÇä ÇáãÇÁ ÇáÐí áÇ íÚíÔ ÅáÇ Ýíå
áÞæá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ýí ÇáÈÍÑ: "åæ ÇáØåæÑ ãÇÄå ÇáÍá ãíÊÊå" ÕÍÍå ÇáÈÎÇÑí
3) æãÇ áÇ äÝÓ áå ÓÇÆáÉ ÅÐÇ áã íßä ãÊæáÏÇ ãä ÇáäÌÇÓÇÊ</p>
[Translation]
It is not permissible to use utensils of gold and silver for purification or anything else, due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu 'Alaihi wa-sallam: "Do not drink from gold and silver utensils, nor eat from its plates, for they are for the disbelievers in this world, and for you in the hereafter" – Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.</p>
The same ruling is applied to utensils soldered with gold and silver, unless the solder is of:
1) silver, and
2) very little quantity</p>
It is permissible to use the rest of the pure utensils</p>
It is likewise permissible to use the utensils of the people of the Book, as well as their garments, so long as their contamination with filth is not known.</p>
The wool and hair of a dead animal is pure.</p>
All skins of dead animals, irrespective of whether they have been tanned or not, are Najis, and likewise, their bones.</p>
Every dead animal is Najis, except;
1) A dead human being, or</p>
2) A dead sea-animal</p>
This is due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu 'alaihi wa-sallam about sea water: "Its water is Tahoor, and its dead is Halal". Al-Bukhari declared it to be Sahih.</p>
3) A dead bloodless animal, as long as it does not originate from Najasat (filth).</p>
[Explanation]</p>
After discussing the types of water, the author then discusses the rulings pertaining to the utensils, since one usually requires utensils to perform ritual purification. While discussing utensils made of gold and silver, the author also mentions a list of other substances along with their state of being Najis or Tahir.</p>
* The author states: “It is not permissible to use utensils of gold and silver for purification or anything else, due to the statement of the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu 'Alaihi wa-sallam: "Do not drink from gold and silver utensils, nor eat from its plates, for they are for the disbelievers in this world, and for you in the hereafter"”</p>
The aforementioned Hadeeth is agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim.</p>
The author uses the Hadeeth to establish the prohibition on the usage of all gold and silver utensils, for purification or any other purpose, because the wording of the Hadeeth clearly states “Do not..” which is understood to be for ‘prohibition’ in Usul al-Fiqh.</p>
Although, the wording of the Hadeeth is specific to drinking and eating using gold and silver utensils, the scholars argue that it is still applicable to general usage of such utensils, and not just eating and drinking. This is because the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam – pointed to its generality by saying: “for they are for the disbelievers in this world, and for you in the hereafter”. Since, it is known that the disbelievers utilise such utensils for all purposes including eating and drinking, therefore the Muslims are not allowed to use such utensils for any purposes in this world.</p>
We must also note that this prohibition is applicable to both men and women equally, unlike the prohibition of wearing gold and silver jewellery, for that is allowed for women while prohibited for men, by scholarly consensus.</p>
There arises another issue, which is: If one utilises a gold or silver utensil for purification, is his Taharah valid such that he becomes ritually purified, or does he still remain in the state of Hadath?</p>
There are two Wajhs amongst our scholars (i.e. Hanbalis):
1) His Taharah is valid, and this is the Madhab, as well as the opinion of al-Khiraqi, the author, Burham al-Din Ibn Muflih and others.
2) His Taharah is not valid and he remains in the state of Hadath. This is the opinion of Abu Bakr al-Khallal, Abu al-Wafa ibn ‘Aqil, Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah, and others.</p>
* The author then states: “The same ruling is applied to utensils soldered with gold and silver”</p>
Meaning: just as it is prohibited to use gold and silver utensils, it is also prohibited to use utensils soldered with gold and silver, since using such soldered utensils can easily be termed ‘using gold and silver’. However, the author then mentions an exception to the rule by saying:</p>
* “unless the solder is of:
1) silver, and
2) very little quantity”</p>
Hence, the only case where one is allowed to use such soldered utensils, is when the solder is strictly of verily little quantity – as needed – of silver and not gold. This is because al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih that the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – fixed one of his broken utensils with the solder of silver. It is derived from this Hadeeth that the only exception to the rule is a very little quantity of silver as needed, where as gold or unnecessary usage or amount of silver remains prohibited due to the generality of the Prophet’s statement: “Do not drink from gold and silver utensils”.</p>
A third condition which the author didn’t mention here, is what he mentions in al-Muqni’ – the book that comes after al-‘Umdah – is that one must not touch the silver soldering while using the utensil. However, if the usage of such utensil requires one to touch the silver soldering, then there is nothing wrong with that.</p>
* The author then says: “It is permissible to use the rest of the pure utensils”</p>
The rest of the pure utensils other than gold and silver include all utensils irrespective of whether they are precious or not. Therefore, it is permissible to use utensils made of precious elements that might be more expensive than gold and silver, just as it is permissible to use utensils made of not-so-precious elements, such as wood, plastic etc.</p>
The reasons for the permissibility here is:
1) It is authentically narrated in various authentic reports, collected by al-Bukhari, that the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam made Wudu from various types of utensils from stone to brass.
2) There is no legal text prohibiting the usage of utensils other than gold and silver, and therefore, they remain on the original ruling of permissibility; since all objects are permissible in origin, until they are declared prohibited by a legal text.</p>
Here comes a question, that why is it prohibited to use gold and silver utensils, while it is permitted to use other utensils, even if made of elements more precious and expensive than gold and silver? Shouldn’t utensils made of precious elements be prohibited due to ‘analogical deduction’ (Qiyas) from gold and silver utensils?</p>
The response to that would be, that the utensils made of precious elements cannot be given the same ruling as gold and silver utensils through ‘analogical deduction’ (Qiyas), since the ‘effective cause’ (‘Illa) in the prohibition of gold and silver utensils is not determined.</p>
‘Analogical deduction’ can only be performed if the ‘effective cause’ (‘Illah) in prohibition or permissibility is known. For example, the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – prohibited consumption of alcohol and explicitly stated the reason, or the ‘effective cause’ (‘Illah) of its prohibition in the Hadeeth: “Every intoxicant is Khamr (wine) and every Khamr is forbidden”.</p>
Based on our knowledge of the prohibition of alcohol along with the ‘effective cause’ of prohibition, which is the intoxication, we can apply the ruling of prohibition on any substance that contains the same ‘effective cause’, such as marijuana.</p>
In the case of the prohibition of gold and silver utensils, since the ‘effective cause’ is not determined, we are not able to apply ‘analogical deduction’ (Qiyas) to other objects, irrespective of whether they are expensive or not.</p>
The difference between ‘Wisdom’ (Hikmah) and the ‘Effective Cause’ (‘Illah)
Many scholars often state the wisdom behind prohibition of using gold and silver utensils, which is to prevent the poor from becoming saddened upon seeing the rich utilising gold and silver utensils. Such may well be the wisdom behind such prohibition; however, ‘wisdom’ is still not regarded to be the ‘effective cause’ for a ruling.</p>
An example that clearly distinguishes between Hikmah and ‘Illah is that of the prohibition of usury, where the wisdom behind such prohibition is to protect the poor from the opportunists amongst the rich; where as the ‘effective cause’ behind the prohibition is merely ‘interest based loan’, whereby the borrower returns more than what he initially borrowed.</p>
However, if the borrower becomes happy with such usurious transaction and does not consider himself oppressed or being taken advantage of, the transaction still remains usury, and therefore prohibited. This example shows that the ‘effective cause’ of the prohibition in this transaction is not Hikmah, rather it is ‘Illah.</p>
Even the secular laws see this division between Hikmah and ‘Illah. For example, the wisdom behind stopping at the red light is to prevent road accidents. The ‘effective cause’ behind stopping at the red light, is simply the red light, even if the driver cannot see any other car in sight for miles.</p>
The reason why I decided to elaborate on this point is that nowadays there many educated ‘scholars’ with modernist/secular approach to Islamic Fiqh, who endeavour to unrestrictedly open up the doors of Ijtihad and question every single principle the Muslims have agreed upon for the last 1400 years. Their approach has resulted in many of the prohibitions turning into permissibilities, such as the Riba banks, insurance, polygamy and other issues of great concern to modernists.</p>
* The author then says: “It is likewise permissible to use the utensils of the people of the Book, as well as their garments, so long as their contamination with filth is not known.”</p>
People of the book are the Jews who were blessed with Torah and the Christians who were blessed with the Gospel.</p>
The author says that it is permissible to use their utensils, so long as one does not know of their contamination with Najis. This is the Madhab without doubt and the opinion of the vast majority of Hanbalis.</p>
However, the term ‘people of the book’ in our context refers to those who do not eat dead meat and those whose slaughtered meat we are allowed to eat. Based on this, we can categorise the utensils as follows:</p>
1) Utensils we can use without washing, that belong to Jews or Christians who do not eat swine nor un-slaughtered meat.
2) Utensils we cannot use except after washing, that belong to those Christians or members of other religions who eat dead meat, or whose slaughtered meat we cannot eat.
3) Utensils we may use without washing, that belong to those listed above in the second category, but it is not known whether they ever used those utensils or not. In this case, as the principle of 'certainty verses doubts' dictates that we regard the utensils to be Tahir which is its original state.</p>
This is how we reconcile between various reports from the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam, some indicating permissibility while others indicated prohibition of using utensils of the people of the book.</p>
As far as the garments of the people of the book are concerned, then they could also be categorised as follows:</p>
1) Garments made by the disbelievers, but never worn by them, and their ruling is that they are Tahir by agreement of scholars.
2) Outer-garments worn by the disbelievers that do not come in contact with their private parts, and the ruling concerning them is that they are also Tahir.
3) Under garments worn by disbelievers that come in contact with their private parts. The scholars have differed over the ruling concerning such garments, some saying, including Imam Ahmad, that one should wash them first, since the disbelievers do not have the concept of Taharah and Najasah in their acts of worship; while others say that all garments in origin are Tahir, and they cannot be declared otherwise based on doubt.</p>
</p>