Bismillahir Rahmaan ar-Raheem
Aqeedah:
Intention is an important ingredient without any doubt before making any judgement on any individual. But if an individual were to come and hit you on the face, how many of you would sit and think of his intention? I don't mean it as a question but just as a point of reflection.
Based on the above, is it necessary for a person to have the intention of worship when he prostates to other than Allah to be declared kufr? And what if a man wore a Qur`anic amulet? Another query could be: Will a man's charity be accepted if Allah is no where in his intention, but he gave it to the poor feeling pity on him?
Is the intention a necessary condition before coming to conclusion and judgement? This is something which scholars discuss in the books of qawaid and my intent is to summarize it here.
To answer this, scholars divided actions into ibaadaat (acts of worship) and aadaat (other than acts of worship). The ibadaat are further divided into two:
1. Those which are pure acts of worship: These include Salah, fasting, Hajj, reciting Qur`an and all other acts of worship which could not possibly be general actions. These actions do not require intention, and the judgement is made from the very action.
2. Those which could be from general actions like charity. So, a man may give charity for the sake of Allah, but it may also happen that he would give feeling pity on the poor and not necessarily for the sake of Allah. Similarly, sacrificing for other than Allah could be purely for the sake of Allah or merely for serving the guests or for his business. These actions require intention to be declared an act of worship.
Based on the above, scholars differed whether prostration is itself an act of worship or not. This is because, people used to prostate before to people as a way of greeting or respect and not necessarily as worship. Examples of this is when the angels were commanded by the Most-High to prostate to Adam, and when the brothers of Yusuf prostrated to him, etc. So, how is it possible for something to be not shirk before which is now shirk? It is for this reason that we find that scholars of the all the four madhaahib and others included differed among themselves on this topic, yet a huge group of them opted prostration to other than Allah to be not shirk in itself, unless intended for worshiping other than Allah.
However, if a man prostates to idols or the dead, then this is in no case merely haram, rather it is shirk al Akbar! This is because this act is not done except to draw closer to the idol or the dead.
The same goes for Qur`anic amulets, majority say that it won't be shirk since the one who wears it places his trust on the word of Allah. Nevertheless, it will be haram as there is no proof to use it. So, it won't be shirk unless someone believes that it is the amulet itself that helps.
And as for will a man's charity be accepted if Allah is no where in his intention, but he gave it to the poor feeling pity on him, we answer: It will be accepted, since his intention is a good one. However, this act won't be regarded as an act of worship but a general good action.
Now keeping this clear distinction in mind, you can solve many questions.
Slaughtering for the dead so that he intercedes for you to Allah, is this shirk or not? Of-course, it is! Because this is exactly one of the reasons why the prophet made takfeer of mushrikeen.
Vows to other than Allah to draw closer to the dead, is it shirk or not? Of-course, it is!
Loving other than Allah to draw closer to the dead, is it shirk or not? Of-course, it is!
Do our Barelwi brothers commit some of the actions of shirk mentioned above? Of-course, and they testify to it.
But are they still Muslims? Of-course they are Muslims, but why takfeer is not made on them is another matter for another day and post!
Fiqh:
Intentions have much effect on our speech. To simplify, lets deal with swear:
1. A man may swear a lot because he used to it (eg. saying wallahi repeatedly). Such a swear is forgiven and there is no kaffarah.
لا يؤاخذكم الله باللغو في ايمانكم
2. Intention affects our swear: A man may swear saying: "I will not eat food today." But he may have intended some specific food. Similarly, "If I saw you leaving out from this door, you are divorced." He may have intended to divorce her if she exits the home. But may be only if he actually *sees* her leaving out.The hukm (action) will be in according to his intention.
ولكن يؤاخذكم بما كسبت قلوبكم...
3. Intention does not affects our swear at times of conflict:
The interpretation of a swear is on the basis of intention of the one who swears, except at times of conflict or quarrel. This remains true whether in the gathering of a qadhi or not, a swear will be understood on its apparent meaning.
مقاصد اللفظ على نية اللافظ الا على يمين القاضي
For eg., if I gave you my book "at tawdeeh li ibn mulaqqin", then you deny taking it. I ask you to swear, and you do so saying: "Wallahi, I did not take that book." He may have intended some book of Sibaweh when he said "that book". However we rule in such situations, that the apparent meaning in which the listener understands in that specific context will be taken. So it will not benefit him, and he will be one of the liars in the sight of Allah.
4. As for other than times of conflict, they are of two types:
a. When a man is oppressed i.e., it would harm him if he swore with the apparent meaning. For example, a man comes your home from tableeghi jamaat and asks for your father to come out. You tell that tableeghi: "Wallahi, he is not here" while intending that he is not there at the door. The tableeghi guy will now leave. This is waajib or at-least mandoob, as you have saved your father from those people of bid'ah.
الامور بمقاصدها
b. Without any fear of harm: For example, you met a man who wanted to come to your home. You agreed unwantedly, but when he came to your door, you send your daughter teaching her to say: "My father is laying." He would think that the father is sleeping and would leave. This is permissible even if she were to swear saying: "Wallahi, my father is laying." And a famous incident is when a man came to Imam Ahmad asking for his student Marwadhi, he said while pointing in some direction: "Wallahi Marwadhi is not here, and what will he do here?" Although scholars have mentioned that this should not be done except for a maslaha (benefit).
الضرر الأشد يُزال بالضرر الأخف
Shaikh Muhammad al Munajjid wrote: Permissibility of Ambiguity and Definition of Necessity
When is deliberate ambiguity valid? If that is in cases of necessity only, then what is the definition of necessity in this case?
Praise be to Allah.
The Arabic word tawriyah [translated here as deliberate ambiguity] means to conceal something.
Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Then Allah sent a crow who scratched the ground to show him how to hide [yuwaari] the dead body of his brother. He (the murderer) said: “Woe to me! Am I not even able to be as this crow and to hide the dead body of my brother?” Then he became one of those who regretted” [5:31]
“O Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover yourselves (screen your private parts – yuwaari saw’aatikum) and as an adornment; and the raiment of righteousness, that is better. Such are among the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allaah, that they may remember (i.e. leave falsehood and follow truth)” [al-A’raaf 7:26]
With regard to the meaning in sharee’ah (religious) terminology, it refers to someone who says something that may appear to have one meaning to the listener but the speaker intends something different that may be understood from these words. For example, he says, “I do not have a dirham in my pocket,” and that is understood to mean that he does not have any money at all, when what he means is that he does not have a dirham but he may have a dinar, for example. This is called ambiguity or dissembling.
Deliberate ambiguity is regarded as a legitimate solution for avoiding difficult situations that a person may find himself in when someone asks him about something, and he does not want to tell the truth on the one hand, and does not want to lie, on the other.
Deliberate ambiguity is permissible if it is necessary or if it serves a shar’i (religious) interest, but it is not appropriate to do it a great deal so that it becomes a habit, or to use it to gain something wrongfully or to deprive someone of his rights.
Al-Nawawi said:
The scholars said: If that is needed to serve some legitimate shar’i interest that outweighs the concern about misleading the person to whom you are speaking, or it is needed for a reason that cannot be achieved without lying, then there is nothing wrong with using deliberate ambiguity as an acceptable alternative. But if there is no interest to be served and no pressing need, then it is makrooh (disliked), but is not haram (impermissible). If it is a means of taking something wrongfully or depriving someone of their rights, then it is haram in that case. This is the guideline in this matter. Al-Adhkaar.
Some scholars were of the view that it is haram to resort to deliberate ambiguity if there is no reason or need to do so. This was the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him). See al-Ikhtiyaaraat.
There are situations in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) taught that we may use deliberate ambiguity, for example:
If a man loses his wudoo (ablution) whilst praying in congregation, what should he do in this embarrassing situation?
The answer is that he should place his hand over his nose and leave.
The evidence for that is the report narrated from ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “If anyone of you breaks his wudoo whilst praying, let him hold his nose and leave.” Sunan Abi Dawood.
Al-Teebi said: The command to hold his nose is so that it will look as if he has a nosebleed. This is not a lie, rather it is a kind of ambiguity. This concession is granted so that the Shaytan will not trick him into staying put because of feeling embarrassed in front of people.
Mirqaah al-Mafaateeh Sharh Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh.
This is a kind of ambiguity that is permitted, so as to avoid any embarrassment and so that whoever sees him leaving will think that he has a nosebleed.
Similarly If a Muslim faces a difficult situation where he needs to say what is against the truth in order to protect himself or someone who is innocent, or to save himself from serious trouble, is there a way for him to escape the situation without lying or falling into sin?
Yes, there is a legal way and a permissible escape that one can make use of if necessary. It is equivocation or indirectness in speech. Imam al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) entitled a chapter of his Saheeh: “Indirect speech is a safe way to avoid a lie”. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Kitaab al-Adab (Book of Manners)).
Equivocation means saying something which has a closer meaning that the hearer will understand, but it also has a remote meaning which what is actually meant and is linguistically correct. The condition for this is that whatever is said should not present a truth as falsity and vice versa. The following are examples of such statements used by the salaf (pious predecessors) and early imams (religious leaders), and collected by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Ighaathat al-Lahfaan:
It was reported about Hammad (may Allah have mercy on him), if someone came that he did not want to sit with, he would say as if in pain: “My tooth, my tooth!” Then the boring person whom he did not like would leave him alone.
Imam Sufyan Al-Thawri was brought to the khaleefah al-Mahdi, who liked him, but when he wanted to leave, the khaleefah told him he had to stay. Al-Thawri swore that he would come back. He then went out, leaving his shoes at the door. After some time he came back, took his shoes and went away. The khaleefah asked about him, and was told that he had sworn to come back, so he had come back and taken his shoes.
Imam Ahmad was in his house, and some of his students, including al-Mirwadhi, were with him. Someone came along, asking for al-Mirwadhi from outside the house, but Imam Ahmad did not want him to go out, so he said: “Al-Mirwadhi is not here, what would he be doing here?” whilst putting his finger in the palm of his other hand, and the person outside could not see what he was doing.
Other examples of equivocation or indirectness in speech include the following:
If someone asks you whether you have seen so-and-so, and you are afraid that if you tell the questioner about him this would lead to harm, you can say “ma ra aytuhu”, meaning that you have not cut his lung, because this is a correct meaning in Arabic [“ma ra aytuhu” usually means “I have not seen him,” but can also mean “I have not cut his lung”]; or you could deny having seen him, referring in your heart to a specific time and place where you have not seen him. If someone asks you to swear an oath that you will never speak to so-and-so, you could say, “Wallaahi lan ukallumahu”, meaning that you will not wound him, because “kalam” can also mean “wound” in Arabic [as well as “speech”]. Similarly, if a person is forced to utter words of kufr (disbelief) and is told to deny Allah, it is permissible for him to say “Kafartu bi’l-laahi”, meaning “I denounce the playboy” [which sounds the same as the phrase meaning “I deny Allah.”]
(Ighaathat al-Lahfaan by Ibn al-Qayyim. See also the section on equivocation (ma’aareed) in Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah by Ibn Muflih).
However, one should be cautious that the use of such statements is restricted only to situations of great difficulty, otherwise:
Excessive use of it may lead to lying.
One may lose good friends, because they would always be in doubt as to what is meant.
If the person to whom such a statement is given comes to know that the reality was different from what he was told, and he was not aware that the person was engaging in deliberate ambiguity or equivocation, he would consider that person to be a liar. This goes against the principle of protecting one’s honour by not giving people cause to doubt one’s integrity.
The person who uses such a technique frequently may become proud of his ability to take advantage of people.
End quote. From Madha taf’al fi’l-haalaat al-aatiyah (What to do in the following situations)?
And Allah knows best.
Reference: https://islamqa.info/en/27261
شرح القواعد الفقهية للسعدي – بالمسجد النبوي – الشيخ سليمان بن سليم الله الرحيلي حفظه الله تعالى
Based on the above, is it necessary for a person to have the intention of worship when he prostates to other than Allah to be declared kufr? And what if a man wore a Qur`anic amulet? Another query could be: Will a man's charity be accepted if Allah is no where in his intention, but he gave it to the poor feeling pity on him?
Is the intention a necessary condition before coming to conclusion and judgement? This is something which scholars discuss in the books of qawaid and my intent is to summarize it here.
To answer this, scholars divided actions into ibaadaat (acts of worship) and aadaat (other than acts of worship). The ibadaat are further divided into two:
1. Those which are pure acts of worship: These include Salah, fasting, Hajj, reciting Qur`an and all other acts of worship which could not possibly be general actions. These actions do not require intention, and the judgement is made from the very action.
2. Those which could be from general actions like charity. So, a man may give charity for the sake of Allah, but it may also happen that he would give feeling pity on the poor and not necessarily for the sake of Allah. Similarly, sacrificing for other than Allah could be purely for the sake of Allah or merely for serving the guests or for his business. These actions require intention to be declared an act of worship.
Based on the above, scholars differed whether prostration is itself an act of worship or not. This is because, people used to prostate before to people as a way of greeting or respect and not necessarily as worship. Examples of this is when the angels were commanded by the Most-High to prostate to Adam, and when the brothers of Yusuf prostrated to him, etc. So, how is it possible for something to be not shirk before which is now shirk? It is for this reason that we find that scholars of the all the four madhaahib and others included differed among themselves on this topic, yet a huge group of them opted prostration to other than Allah to be not shirk in itself, unless intended for worshiping other than Allah.
However, if a man prostates to idols or the dead, then this is in no case merely haram, rather it is shirk al Akbar! This is because this act is not done except to draw closer to the idol or the dead.
The same goes for Qur`anic amulets, majority say that it won't be shirk since the one who wears it places his trust on the word of Allah. Nevertheless, it will be haram as there is no proof to use it. So, it won't be shirk unless someone believes that it is the amulet itself that helps.
And as for will a man's charity be accepted if Allah is no where in his intention, but he gave it to the poor feeling pity on him, we answer: It will be accepted, since his intention is a good one. However, this act won't be regarded as an act of worship but a general good action.
Now keeping this clear distinction in mind, you can solve many questions.
Slaughtering for the dead so that he intercedes for you to Allah, is this shirk or not? Of-course, it is! Because this is exactly one of the reasons why the prophet made takfeer of mushrikeen.
Vows to other than Allah to draw closer to the dead, is it shirk or not? Of-course, it is!
Loving other than Allah to draw closer to the dead, is it shirk or not? Of-course, it is!
Do our Barelwi brothers commit some of the actions of shirk mentioned above? Of-course, and they testify to it.
But are they still Muslims? Of-course they are Muslims, but why takfeer is not made on them is another matter for another day and post!
Fiqh:
Intentions have much effect on our speech. To simplify, lets deal with swear:
1. A man may swear a lot because he used to it (eg. saying wallahi repeatedly). Such a swear is forgiven and there is no kaffarah.
لا يؤاخذكم الله باللغو في ايمانكم
2. Intention affects our swear: A man may swear saying: "I will not eat food today." But he may have intended some specific food. Similarly, "If I saw you leaving out from this door, you are divorced." He may have intended to divorce her if she exits the home. But may be only if he actually *sees* her leaving out.The hukm (action) will be in according to his intention.
ولكن يؤاخذكم بما كسبت قلوبكم...
3. Intention does not affects our swear at times of conflict:
The interpretation of a swear is on the basis of intention of the one who swears, except at times of conflict or quarrel. This remains true whether in the gathering of a qadhi or not, a swear will be understood on its apparent meaning.
مقاصد اللفظ على نية اللافظ الا على يمين القاضي
For eg., if I gave you my book "at tawdeeh li ibn mulaqqin", then you deny taking it. I ask you to swear, and you do so saying: "Wallahi, I did not take that book." He may have intended some book of Sibaweh when he said "that book". However we rule in such situations, that the apparent meaning in which the listener understands in that specific context will be taken. So it will not benefit him, and he will be one of the liars in the sight of Allah.
4. As for other than times of conflict, they are of two types:
a. When a man is oppressed i.e., it would harm him if he swore with the apparent meaning. For example, a man comes your home from tableeghi jamaat and asks for your father to come out. You tell that tableeghi: "Wallahi, he is not here" while intending that he is not there at the door. The tableeghi guy will now leave. This is waajib or at-least mandoob, as you have saved your father from those people of bid'ah.
الامور بمقاصدها
b. Without any fear of harm: For example, you met a man who wanted to come to your home. You agreed unwantedly, but when he came to your door, you send your daughter teaching her to say: "My father is laying." He would think that the father is sleeping and would leave. This is permissible even if she were to swear saying: "Wallahi, my father is laying." And a famous incident is when a man came to Imam Ahmad asking for his student Marwadhi, he said while pointing in some direction: "Wallahi Marwadhi is not here, and what will he do here?" Although scholars have mentioned that this should not be done except for a maslaha (benefit).
الضرر الأشد يُزال بالضرر الأخف
Shaikh Muhammad al Munajjid wrote: Permissibility of Ambiguity and Definition of Necessity
When is deliberate ambiguity valid? If that is in cases of necessity only, then what is the definition of necessity in this case?
Praise be to Allah.
The Arabic word tawriyah [translated here as deliberate ambiguity] means to conceal something.
Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Then Allah sent a crow who scratched the ground to show him how to hide [yuwaari] the dead body of his brother. He (the murderer) said: “Woe to me! Am I not even able to be as this crow and to hide the dead body of my brother?” Then he became one of those who regretted” [5:31]
“O Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover yourselves (screen your private parts – yuwaari saw’aatikum) and as an adornment; and the raiment of righteousness, that is better. Such are among the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allaah, that they may remember (i.e. leave falsehood and follow truth)” [al-A’raaf 7:26]
With regard to the meaning in sharee’ah (religious) terminology, it refers to someone who says something that may appear to have one meaning to the listener but the speaker intends something different that may be understood from these words. For example, he says, “I do not have a dirham in my pocket,” and that is understood to mean that he does not have any money at all, when what he means is that he does not have a dirham but he may have a dinar, for example. This is called ambiguity or dissembling.
Deliberate ambiguity is regarded as a legitimate solution for avoiding difficult situations that a person may find himself in when someone asks him about something, and he does not want to tell the truth on the one hand, and does not want to lie, on the other.
Deliberate ambiguity is permissible if it is necessary or if it serves a shar’i (religious) interest, but it is not appropriate to do it a great deal so that it becomes a habit, or to use it to gain something wrongfully or to deprive someone of his rights.
Al-Nawawi said:
The scholars said: If that is needed to serve some legitimate shar’i interest that outweighs the concern about misleading the person to whom you are speaking, or it is needed for a reason that cannot be achieved without lying, then there is nothing wrong with using deliberate ambiguity as an acceptable alternative. But if there is no interest to be served and no pressing need, then it is makrooh (disliked), but is not haram (impermissible). If it is a means of taking something wrongfully or depriving someone of their rights, then it is haram in that case. This is the guideline in this matter. Al-Adhkaar.
Some scholars were of the view that it is haram to resort to deliberate ambiguity if there is no reason or need to do so. This was the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him). See al-Ikhtiyaaraat.
There are situations in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) taught that we may use deliberate ambiguity, for example:
If a man loses his wudoo (ablution) whilst praying in congregation, what should he do in this embarrassing situation?
The answer is that he should place his hand over his nose and leave.
The evidence for that is the report narrated from ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “If anyone of you breaks his wudoo whilst praying, let him hold his nose and leave.” Sunan Abi Dawood.
Al-Teebi said: The command to hold his nose is so that it will look as if he has a nosebleed. This is not a lie, rather it is a kind of ambiguity. This concession is granted so that the Shaytan will not trick him into staying put because of feeling embarrassed in front of people.
Mirqaah al-Mafaateeh Sharh Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh.
This is a kind of ambiguity that is permitted, so as to avoid any embarrassment and so that whoever sees him leaving will think that he has a nosebleed.
Similarly If a Muslim faces a difficult situation where he needs to say what is against the truth in order to protect himself or someone who is innocent, or to save himself from serious trouble, is there a way for him to escape the situation without lying or falling into sin?
Yes, there is a legal way and a permissible escape that one can make use of if necessary. It is equivocation or indirectness in speech. Imam al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) entitled a chapter of his Saheeh: “Indirect speech is a safe way to avoid a lie”. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Kitaab al-Adab (Book of Manners)).
Equivocation means saying something which has a closer meaning that the hearer will understand, but it also has a remote meaning which what is actually meant and is linguistically correct. The condition for this is that whatever is said should not present a truth as falsity and vice versa. The following are examples of such statements used by the salaf (pious predecessors) and early imams (religious leaders), and collected by Imam Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Ighaathat al-Lahfaan:
It was reported about Hammad (may Allah have mercy on him), if someone came that he did not want to sit with, he would say as if in pain: “My tooth, my tooth!” Then the boring person whom he did not like would leave him alone.
Imam Sufyan Al-Thawri was brought to the khaleefah al-Mahdi, who liked him, but when he wanted to leave, the khaleefah told him he had to stay. Al-Thawri swore that he would come back. He then went out, leaving his shoes at the door. After some time he came back, took his shoes and went away. The khaleefah asked about him, and was told that he had sworn to come back, so he had come back and taken his shoes.
Imam Ahmad was in his house, and some of his students, including al-Mirwadhi, were with him. Someone came along, asking for al-Mirwadhi from outside the house, but Imam Ahmad did not want him to go out, so he said: “Al-Mirwadhi is not here, what would he be doing here?” whilst putting his finger in the palm of his other hand, and the person outside could not see what he was doing.
Other examples of equivocation or indirectness in speech include the following:
If someone asks you whether you have seen so-and-so, and you are afraid that if you tell the questioner about him this would lead to harm, you can say “ma ra aytuhu”, meaning that you have not cut his lung, because this is a correct meaning in Arabic [“ma ra aytuhu” usually means “I have not seen him,” but can also mean “I have not cut his lung”]; or you could deny having seen him, referring in your heart to a specific time and place where you have not seen him. If someone asks you to swear an oath that you will never speak to so-and-so, you could say, “Wallaahi lan ukallumahu”, meaning that you will not wound him, because “kalam” can also mean “wound” in Arabic [as well as “speech”]. Similarly, if a person is forced to utter words of kufr (disbelief) and is told to deny Allah, it is permissible for him to say “Kafartu bi’l-laahi”, meaning “I denounce the playboy” [which sounds the same as the phrase meaning “I deny Allah.”]
(Ighaathat al-Lahfaan by Ibn al-Qayyim. See also the section on equivocation (ma’aareed) in Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah by Ibn Muflih).
However, one should be cautious that the use of such statements is restricted only to situations of great difficulty, otherwise:
Excessive use of it may lead to lying.
One may lose good friends, because they would always be in doubt as to what is meant.
If the person to whom such a statement is given comes to know that the reality was different from what he was told, and he was not aware that the person was engaging in deliberate ambiguity or equivocation, he would consider that person to be a liar. This goes against the principle of protecting one’s honour by not giving people cause to doubt one’s integrity.
The person who uses such a technique frequently may become proud of his ability to take advantage of people.
End quote. From Madha taf’al fi’l-haalaat al-aatiyah (What to do in the following situations)?
And Allah knows best.
Reference: https://islamqa.info/en/27261
For more details, look into books of qawaid of fiqh like ashbaahun-nazaair of as-Suyuti and Ibn Nujaym. Alternatively, listen to audio sharh of shaikh Ruhaily here:
شرح القواعد الفقهية للسعدي – بالمسجد النبوي – الشيخ سليمان بن سليم الله الرحيلي حفظه الله تعالى
http://dro-s.com/%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%AD-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%82%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AC%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84/
Something extra on intentions:
A mother is rewarded if she prepares pizza intending to feed her children. And she is rewarded more if she prepares it as reward for those children who will perform Salah on time five times a day. The first was intended as a usual act of goodness deserving of reward, and the latter was intended absolutely for the sake of Allah and is deserving of more reward. And although the first one has no sign of it being "specially" for the sake of Allah, it is rewarded because:
1. It does not entails absence (نفي) or it not being for the sake of Allah.
2. Not for the sake of other gods (شرك).
3. Not for show-off (رياء).
4. Not for reputation (سمعة).
5. Any other possible evil intention.
If a good deed (apart from absolute forms of worship عبادة like: Salah, fast, i'tikaaf etc.) is done while meeting the above five conditions, the act is accepted and rewarded by Allah.
It is well known to the ummah that intending something to be for the sake of Allah is not a condition in matters of adaat (customary actions like eating, business, etc) to be accepted. Imam Shatbi mentioned this in al-Muwafiqqaat. And this is in almost every sharh of the famous hadith of intention, and in the books of usool and qawaid. Therefore, the one who claims something on the contrary has hastened and is certainly mistaken.
Something extra on intentions:
A mother is rewarded if she prepares pizza intending to feed her children. And she is rewarded more if she prepares it as reward for those children who will perform Salah on time five times a day. The first was intended as a usual act of goodness deserving of reward, and the latter was intended absolutely for the sake of Allah and is deserving of more reward. And although the first one has no sign of it being "specially" for the sake of Allah, it is rewarded because:
1. It does not entails absence (نفي) or it not being for the sake of Allah.
2. Not for the sake of other gods (شرك).
3. Not for show-off (رياء).
4. Not for reputation (سمعة).
5. Any other possible evil intention.
If a good deed (apart from absolute forms of worship عبادة like: Salah, fast, i'tikaaf etc.) is done while meeting the above five conditions, the act is accepted and rewarded by Allah.
It is well known to the ummah that intending something to be for the sake of Allah is not a condition in matters of adaat (customary actions like eating, business, etc) to be accepted. Imam Shatbi mentioned this in al-Muwafiqqaat. And this is in almost every sharh of the famous hadith of intention, and in the books of usool and qawaid. Therefore, the one who claims something on the contrary has hastened and is certainly mistaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment
To contact us, Please do so from the "Contact us" tab on the top of this page