Side Links
Prayer Time
Makkah Tower Prophet Alhamdulillaah Muharram Muharram 2 Muharram 3 Ashura 12 Months Good Advice Sincerity 5

  |      |   

 

 

The First Objection:
“This is based on the assumption that every law is based on seeking what is good. On this point there is a difference of opinion… What seems to be closest to what is correct is not to render an opinion [on this matter].” 192
 
The response to this objection is that the difference of opinion over whether the previous religious laws were comprised of seeking what is good is actually only a matter of whether such is logically permissible or not. It is not a matter of looking at the reality and practices of such religious communities and laws. Logically speaking, it is conceivable that such previous laws were comprised of seeking the good while it is also conceivable that they were not comprised of seeking the good and they were not concerned with attending to the welfare of humans.
 
However, when one moves from theoretical possibility to the realm of reality concerning the religions and laws, it is seen that no religious community or religious law was void of attending to the necessities. In fact, the texts of the Quran and Sunnah indicate this fact. For example, Allah says,
 “And We obligated for them in it, ‘A life for a life…’” (al-Maaidah 45). This verse indicates the law of retribution was enacted concerning life and lesser injuries as a means of preserving life and limb. This shows that there was a concern for the welfare of the humans in those laws. How could it be otherwise? Those laws were from Allah, the All-Wise, the All-Knowing. He intended by them the well-being of the creation in both their worldly life and the Hereafter.193
 
For this reason, al-Shaatibi stated in al-Muwaafaqaat,194  “The whole Nation agrees—in fact, so do the other religions—that the Shareeah has been prescribed to preserve the five necessities, which are religion, life, familial ties, wealth and mental capacity. The knowledge of this among the Nation is like a necessary knowledge. This is not confirmed for us by any specific evidence. Nor do we see a specific source that is distinguished by referring to them. Instead, it is known by its filling the Shareeah with a number of evidences that cannot be encapsulated in one chapter.”
 
The Second Objection:
Alcohol was unconditionally permitted in the previous laws without any distinction between a small or large amount. Alcohol makes the mind go and befogs it. This negates the claim that all the previous laws agreed upon the preservation of mental capacity.
Al-Shaukaani stated,
The claim that all the religious laws agree upon the five aforementioned [necessities] has been objected to by the fact that alcohol was permitted in the previous religions and in the beginning of Islam. It is related that what was permissible in those laws was only the amount that did not lead to intoxication and the loss of reasoning. This was forbidden in all religions, as al-Ghazaali stated.195 Ibn al-Qushairi quotes this from al-Qafaal and then he disputes it. He says, “The unquestionable reports demonstrate that it was permissible unconditionally. It is not confirmed that it was permissible only to the level at which it did not befog the mind.” Al-Nawawi has said the same in his commentary to Sahih Muslim.196  His words are, “As for what he says that intoxicants were always prohibited is false, without any foundation to it.”197  I [al-Shaukaani] say: I have studied the Torah and the Gospel and I did not find in either of them anything but the unconditional permissibility of alcohol without restricting it to what is not intoxicating. In fact, in the two of them, it is explicit concerning alcohol leading to intoxication and the permissibility of it. Thus, the claim that all the religions agree upon its prohibition is not satisfied. Similarly, I studied the books of the prophets of the Tribe of Israel and I did not find any evidence that its permissibility is restricted in any way.198
 
In his commentary to the verses from Soorah al-Maaidah which prohibit alcohol, al-Qurtubi presents a number of hadith related to the story of the prohibition of alcohol. Then he states, “These hadith demonstrate that drinking alcohol was something permissible, acted upon and well-known among them, to the point that no one objected to it or try to change [the wrong]. In fact, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accepted it. This is something that no one disputes.” Then he asks, “Was the amount of alcohol that would intoxicate a person permissible?” He responds by saying that the hadith of Hamzah, wherein he drank alcohol, became intoxicated, attacked Ali’s camel, was rebuked by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and responded to the Prophet’s rebuke harshly instead of with the necessary respect and dignity for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) all demonstrate that Hamzah drank to the point that he was definitely intoxicated. Thus, the narrator noted, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then came to know that he was drunk.199
 
Even though all of that happened, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) neither reprimanded nor rebuked him, neither while he was intoxicated nor afterwards. Then al-Qurtubi noted, “This contradicts what the legal theorists have stated and quoted. They say that intoxication is prohibited in all of the religious laws because the laws are for the well-being of humans and not for their harm. The source of all masaalih is the mind, just as the source of all mafaasid is its loss. Therefore, everything that makes one lose one senses or befogs them should be prohibited. However, the hadith of Hamzah could be interpreted to mean that he did not intend by his drinking to get drunk but it simply overcame him quickly. And Allah knows best.”200
 
In sum, al-Shaukaani and al-Qurtubi present three pieces of evidence to negate the claim of the previously mentioned consensus. The following explains and responds to them:
The first evidence is the permissibility of a small or large amount of alcohol in the Laws of Moses and Jesus. Al-Shaukaani studied the Torah, Gospel and books of the prophets of the Tribe of Israel and only found the unconditional permissibility of alcohol. In fact, there is explicit permission of intoxication after consuming alcohol.
 
This piece of evidence is responded to with two points.
First, the earlier religious laws were built upon attending to the masaalih of humans, including thereby the tending to the five necessities without which a humane situation cannot be established nor can the worldly and afterlife affairs be maintained. Among these is the preservation of mental capacity.
 
There are many evidences from the Quran and Sunnah indicating that the previous laws were comprised of the masaalih of the people and attending to and preserving their necessities. This is not the place to detail all of those. However, they explicitly demonstrate that Allah sent His messengers to reform mankind and to guide them, to take them by their hands to that which contains their happiness and success in both this life and the Hereafter. Those messengers knew of no good except that they guided their people to it and ordered them to do it. And they knew of no evil except that they warned them about it and prohibited it for them. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,
“There was no Prophet before me except that it was his duty to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them.”201
 
There is no question that alcohol is the mother of all evil and the driving force to immorality, as it removes one’s senses and ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Springing from it is a great deal of evil and widespread harm. [Such a practice as drinking alcohol] goes against the role of the prophets in reforming humans, bringing about good for them and repelling harm and evil from them.
 
Allah says concerning Moses (peace be upon him),
 “Moses said to his brother Aaron, ‘Take my place among the people. Make things right, and follow not the way of the corrupters’” (al-Araaf 142). He advised him to make things right and to be distant from the ways of the evildoers. Such is the role of all of the prophets of Allah. There is no doubt that alcohol is one of the greatest causes of evil, the opposite of what brings about good.
 
Allah also says about Shuaib (peace be upon him),
 “I only desire reform so far as I am able” (Hood 88).
 
He also says, while quoting Shuaib speaking to his people,
 “Do not wrong the people concerning their goods, and do not cause evil in the land after it has been set in order. That will be better for you, if you are believers” (al-Araaf 85).
 
He also said,
 “And defraud not people by reducing their things, nor do evil, making corruption and mischief in the land” (al-Shuaraa 183).
 
These verses explicitly indicate that the prophets were sent for the purposes of reform and bringing about good as well as to oppose evil and prohibit wrongdoing and corruption on the earth. Intoxicants are one of the greatest forms of evil and fall under what those religious laws prohibited.202
 
This answers the objection of al-Shaukaani and others concerning what they found in the Torah, Gospel and books of the prophets of the Tribe of Israel concerning an unconditional permissibility of alcohol. This is because it contradicts what the Quran and Sunnah indicate. Obviously, the authority is with those two.
 
Furthermore, those books have passed through many years and have been touched by the hand of distortion and alteration, to the point that the beliefs and foundations of faith and monotheism have been distorted—not to speak of this particular issue which may be driven by the pull of lust and desires. Therefore, they cannot be considered a proof, especially if they contradict what is indicated by the Quran and Sunnah.
 
This is in addition to the fact that “it is well-known from the words of the Christians and their priests that it [that is, alcohol] is forbidden among them.”203
 
What ibn Abi Haatim and others narrated from Abdullah ibn Amr also indicates this. He stated, “This verse from the Quran, ‘O you who believe! Wine, gambling, idols and divining arrows are only filth from the work of Satan. Avoid that in order that you may succeed’ [al-Maaidah 90] is also in the Torah. Allah revealed the truth to remove by it falsehood. And he has voided by it lutes, flutes, dancing204, handdrums205, poetry and alcohol for whoever tries it once. Allah swore by His oath and His greatness that, ‘Whoever drinks it after I have forbidden it, I shall make him go thirsty on the day of resurrection. And whoever leaves it after I have forbidden it, I shall give him to drink from Paradise.’”206
 
There is no doubt that Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with both of them) is an authority concerning what he states about the People of the Book because he was an expert and well-acquainted with their books, as is an accepted fact among the scholars.207  This is why they say that if Abdullah ibn Amr states something that is not narrated from the Arabic language, nor is there any room in it for personal reasoning or judgment and he does not explicitly ascribe it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then it does not have the ruling of having had come from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This is because he may have taken it from the People of the Book, since he used to read their books. He came across a large number of the books of the People of the Book at the Battle of Yarmook. He used to report from those books concerning things of the past and the unseen. He did this to the point that some of his colleagues would say to him, “Narrate to us from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and do not narrate to us from the books.”208
 
Second, even if we accept the fact that alcohol was unconditionally permissible among the previous religious laws, that does not damage the claim of a consensus among all the previous religions and religious laws that they all attended to the necessities, including preservation of mental capacity.
 
The reasoning here is that the preserving of mental capacity that is agreed upon among all the religious laws is that preservation that keeps it from being lost in its totality, such that it never recovers. It is inconceivable that any law from the laws that intends the good of the people would be negligent on this point. This is because mental capacity is the basis for responsibility and the tool used to understand the communication from Allah. If mental capacity is lost, religiousness is gone. As for something that befogs the mind on a temporary basis, it is not far-fetched to think that some laws may prohibit it while others do not. In other words, “What is forbidden among all the religious laws is a complete loss of mental capacity. Alcohol makes it go temporarily and then it returns.”209
 
Since the Islamic Shareeah is the final religious law and the most complete in preserving and caring for the masaalih of humans, it has prohibited alcohol and intoxicants, both small and large amounts of them. This is because small amounts lead to using larger amounts. Furthermore, a prescribed, fixed, permanent punishment, which cannot be foregone nor can any intercession be made concerning it, has been laid down for it. That shall be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four, Allah willing.
 
The second evidence is what ibn al-Qushairi related of unquestionable reports that alcohol was unconditionally permissible and that it is not confirmed that the permission was only to the level that it would not befog the mind.
 
The response to this is that this is not admissible. This is because if he means by “report” the Quran and the Sunnah, there is no such text that affirms that, not to speak of an unquestionable one. In fact, their apparent meanings are contrary to that, as was just discussed above.
 
If he means by “report” that which is transmitted by storytellers, historians and narrators, their narrations cannot be relied upon because they do not sift through what they report and they do not use a detailed analysis when they affirm something. They combine together what is true with what is false, what is authentic with what is rejected, and what is affirmed with what is not affirmed.
 
This is an established matter among the scholars. It is also clear for anyone who inspects their books on the prophet’s biography, historical events, news, and obituaries and so on.
 
This is the response if he was referring to unquestionable reports of unconditional permissibility in the laws of Moses and Jesus. However, if he meant by such unquestionable reports the unconditional permission during the beginning of Islam, then that is the third piece of evidence.
 
Thus, the third evidence is what is affirmed via sound and explicit evidence that alcohol was permissible in the early days of Islam, both a small or large quantity of it.210
 
The response to this is that its permissible in the early days of Islam is admitted. The Quran and the Sunnah both indicate that. Even though, the claim that it was unconditionally permissible, both in small or large amounts, has also been objected to. Al-Ghazaali and those who follow him among the legal theorists say that it was only permissible to the level that it did not intoxicate the person and remove his senses. The correct opinion is that it was unconditionally permissible at that time.211
 
Although we accept this fact, it does not contradict the aforementioned consensus. This is because the matter that the Islamic Shareeah finally settled upon and concerning which all of the Community of Muhammad agree upon is that alcohol is absolutely forbidden.
 
Its permissibility before that can be ignored. This is because the point is concerning the final, established ruling. Furthermore, its permissibility was only for a short period of time, that which was decreed by the wisdom of the legislation coming down in stages and taking the people to the truth bit by bit, so that the new law would not be met with rejection and disdain. This was done because before that they were accustomed to drinking alcohol. In fact, they loved it very much. If they would have been ordered to leave it all at once, that might have been too great of a trial for some of them and a cause for them to leave Islam. And Allah knows best.
 
The Third Objection: In the previous religious laws, it was allowed to waste wealth in unproductive manners.
 
The evidence for this is two points. First, the war-booty was forbidden in the previous laws. The people were ordered to gather it all in a specific place and leave it to have a fire that descended from the sky devour it,212  without them getting anything of it. This is waste of wealth in a non-productive manner. This indicates that wealth was not protected in the previous laws.
 
The response to that is that offering up the war-booty to be devoured by a heavenly fire is not wasting wealth in an unjust manner. Indeed, it has a clear, prominent maslahah to it. That is that they were doing that act in fulfillment of a command from their Lord who required them to do that for a great benefit. This was to purify their souls from intending from their jihad the war booty only, until Allah could purify their fighting and make their struggle for His pleasure alone. Imam ibn al-Qayyim noted,
“Thus, the permissibility of the war-booty was something reprehensible for the people before us, so that its permissibility would make them fight solely for its sake and make their deeds for other than Allah. In that case, they would have lost the great benefit of purity, which is the greatest of benefits. The Wisest of Judges protected this aspect of this great benefit by forbidding them the war-booty, so that their fighting would be pure for Allah and not for this world. So the maslahah in their case was to forbid them the war-booty. However, when this Nation came along, which is the most complete Nation with respect to understanding, the purest in faith, the greatest in their monotheism and purity, most desiring of the Hereafter, most indifferent to the worldly things, He allowed them the spoils of war. Its permission was something good with respect to them, although it was not good for the people before them. It is like a doctor allowing meat for a healthy person concerning whom he does not fear its ill effects and his keeping it from a sick person to protect him.”213
 
This, without a doubt, is a great virtue and honor for this Nation due to their attributes described above.
 
It is also a mercy from Allah for them and an act of goodness to them as He has allowed for them the war booty and concealed any kind of theft from it, which would have been a disgrace exposed by its not being devoured by the Fire.214  In an authentic hadith, Abu Hurairah relates that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,
“One of the prophets was about to carry out a military expedition. He said to his people, ‘Anyone who has married and wants to consummate the marriage and has not done so should not accompany me. A man who has built a house but has not yet completed its roof also should not accompany me. A man who has sheep or she-camels and is waiting for the birth of their young also should not accompany me.’ So the prophet carried out the military expedition and he came close to a town at the time of the Afternoon Prayer or close to that time. He said to the sun, ‘You are being commanded and I have been commanded. O Allah, hold it back for us.’ So Allah restrained it until Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to it to devour it but it did not burn it. He said [speaking to his people], ‘Among you is one who has stolen from the booty. So let a man from every tribe give me a pledge of allegiance.’ He shook the hands of one of the men and his hand got stuck. He said, ‘Among you is the one who stole from the war booty. So have your entire tribe make the pledge of allegiance to me.’ He shook the hands of two or three men and his hand got stuck. He said, ‘You have stolen from the war booty.’ Then they brought a heap of gold like the head of a cow. They put it in its place and the fire came and devoured it. Then Allah permitted for us the war booty. He saw our weakness and our inability, so He made it permissible for us.”215
 
The second piece of evidence is the story of Solomon, the Prophet of Allah. His story is recounted by our Lord in His words,
“When there were displayed before him, in the afternoon, well trained horses of the highest breed. And he said, "Alas! I did love the good (these horses) instead of remembering my Lord’ and (the sun) had hidden in the veil (of night). Then he said ‘Bring them (horses) back to me.’ Then he began to pass his hand over their legs and their necks” (Saad 31-33).
 
The argument from this verse is that Solomon then slaughtered them and hamstrung them for nothing but that they were health that preoccupied him from prayers and the remembrance of Allah.216  If such was the case, one cannot say that there was a consensus among the previous religious laws to preserve wealth.
 
This argument can be responded to by noting that the verse does not indicate what they want from it. There is no wasting of wealth as they claim. The verse has a number of possible meanings to it as mentioned by the scholars of Quranic commentary. These interpretations include the following:
(1) Solomon would brand their legs and necks and keep them for the sake of Allah.217 This interpretation, though, is rejected because it is weak, as the legs are under no circumstances a place for branding.218
 
(2) He began to touch their legs and necks out of love for them. Ali ibn Abi Talhah narrated this from ibn Abbaas. Mujaahid said, “He touched them with his hand.” This is the conclusion of Qaadhi Abu Yala219 as well as that of ibn Jareer al-Tabari who said, “This opinion that we have mentioned from ibn Abbaas is most likely the correct interpretation of the verse. This is because a prophet of Allah would never, Allah willing, punish animals by hamstringing them or destroy any of his wealth for no reason but it kept him preoccupied from his prayer by his looking at it. They did not commit any sin by his looking at them.”220
 
This interpretation is rejected because the context of the verse does not support it and there is some doubt about its narration from ibn Abbaas.
 
Ibn al-Jauzi said, “What relationship is there between them preoccupying him from the prayer and his wiping their manes out of love for them? I do not know if his words, ‘out of love for them,’ are confirmed from ibn Abbaas. However, Mujaahid’s statement, ‘He touched them with his hand,’ could be understood to mean that he followed that up by striking their neck.”221
 
Ibn Katheer stated, “There is some question about that which ibn Jareer considered the strongest view. It could have been that in their law something of that nature was permissible, especially if it were out of anger for the sake of Allah due to his preoccupation with them until the time of the prayer had finished.”222
 
(3) The third interpretation is that he struck their shanks and necks with a sword and destroyed them as a way of getting close to Allah, out of anger for His sake, since they preoccupied him from the worship and remembrance of his Lord.
 
Al-Hasan al-Basri said, “He [Solomon] said, ‘No, by Allah, you will never again preoccupy me from the worship of my Lord.’ And then he ordered to have them hamstrung.” Qataadah stated the same.  This is also the view of ibn Abbaas, al-Suddi, Muqaatil, al-Faraa, Abu Ubaidah, al-Zajjaaj, ibn Qutaibah and the majority of the Quranic commentators.224
 
Al-Shaukaani noted,
This [the third view recorded here] is most consistent with the context. It mentions that he gave preference to them over remembering his Lord until he missed the time of the Afternoon prayer. Then he ordered to have them brought back to him so he could punish himself by destroying what amused him, prevented him from the worship of his Lord and preoccupied him from performing the act that Allah had made obligatory upon him. It is simply not relevant here to say that his purpose in having them brought back was that he could wipe the dust from their shanks and necks by wiping over them with his hand or garment. As for those who insist on saying that destroying wealth is not something that would be done by a prophet, they simply consider it strange based on what is the accepted norm in our Law, although it is possible that in the Law of Solomon something of that nature was permissible. Furthermore, the prohibited destroying of wealth in our Law is if it is a pure wasting of it without any sound goal. But if there is a sound purpose for it, even something like that is permissible in our Law. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had the cooking pots overturned when they were cooking meat from the spoils of war before it had been divided up [among them]. There are many such examples in Islamic Law. Such also occurred among the Companions when they burnt the food of the hoarder.225
Thus, he slaughtered them out of anger for the sake of Allah and to get closer to Allah. For that reason, Allah replaced them for him with something better than them. He replaced them with the wind that was subjected to his command, to flow gently to his order, whithersoever he willed, coming and going for the distance of one month. Wahb ibn Munabbih said, “When he struck their shanks and necks, Allah appreciated that from him so He made the wind subservient to him to replace them. The wind is more beautiful a sight, faster in travel and more amazing as subjects to speak about.”226
 
Thus he did not destroy them in vain, nor did he kill them purposelessly. He slaughtered them only to earn the pleasure of Allah and to get closer to Him via his wealth that he loved dearly, to the point that his love for them preoccupied him from the remembrance of his Lord. “He said, ‘Alas! I did love the good (these horses) instead of remembering my Lord…’ to the end of the verse [Saad 32]. As long as the animals were a type of sacrifice, he would still eat from them and feed the poor and those in need.”227
 
Al-Qurtubi wrote, “He ordered the slaughtering and hamstringing not as a punishment for the horses, as it is permissible to slaughter animals if they can be eaten. Instead, it was a punishment for himself so that the horses could never again preoccupy him from the prayer. Perhaps they were hamstrung in ordered to be slaughtered. He held them up by hamstringing them to keep them from fleeing. Then he slaughtered them in that situation in order to give their meat in charity.”228
 
This clarifies that he did not destroy his wealth unjustly. He only meant by that rewards and benefits from their meat being eaten and charity. “Destroying” wealth in obedience to Allah is sanctioned in every religion. It is like the sacrificial animals that are sacrificed as a means of getting closer to Allah.
 
In the light of the preceding discussion, we know that the preservation of wealth was a concern in all religious communities and law. It was not permissible to usurp it, steal it or have it destroyed by its owner or anyone else except with a proper right to do so. That is what occurred with Solomon (peace be upon him).
 
With this, what I wanted to say about the necessities has come to an end. I have expanded the discussion of the necessities and I have lengthened this discussion. This is because it is the foundation, pillar  and cornerstone of the research. True security can only come about by ensuring, preserving and attending to these necessities. All of the means sanctioned by Islam to obtain security are in all reality meant to preserve, ensure and protect these necessities from any current or expected transgression against them.
 
Every means that is sanctioned to realize physical or psychological security that ignores the preservation of all or some of these necessities will eventually end up useless and lost, without fulfilling any of the goals that were expected from it. In fact, they could end up as causes for increased misery, spread of trials and chaos and so on.
 
This includes what the Westerners, with all their variety, do with respect to permitting women to display themselves in public, mixing between women and non-related men and, in fact, even permitting sexual intercourse as long as the two parties are consenting. They claim that this reduces sexual tensions and, thereby, reduces rapes, sexual perversions, feelings of anxiety and loss and so forth. However, the reality that is experienced, not to speak of the law and sound reasoning, affirms that this theory is false and contradicts with human nature. It is, in fact, a cause for the breakdown of familial ties, confusion in paternity, violation of honor and dignity, inciting of overpowering lusts and the kindling of the still impulses.
 
Such is also the case with respect to interest and some forbidden transactions. They claim that they will lead to a strong economy, increases in wealth and development. In reality, it simply wipes out and destroys wealth. Indeed, it even destroys with it souls and people. A more detailed discussion of this point will come in the midst of this research, Allah willing. And Allah alone knows best.
 
Footnotes
192 This was stated by al-Zarkashi in al-Bahr al-Muheet, vol. 5, p. 209; Isa Manoon quoted this statement from him in Nibraas al-Uqool, vol. 1, p. 279.
193 See Nibraas al-Uqool, vol. 1, p. 279.
194 Vol. 1, p. 38.
195 Earlier, al-Ghazaali’s statement was presented.
196 Sharh al-Nawawi ala Saheeh Muslim, vol. 13, p. 144.
197 This objection and the response to it was taken almost verbatim by al-Shaukaani from al-Zarkashi in al-Bahr al-Muheet, vol. 5, pp. 209-210.
198 Irshaad al-Fahool, p. 216.
199 The full version of the hadith, recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim, from Ali is that Ali said: I had an old she-camel as my portion of the spoils of war from Badr. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had given me another she-camel from the one-fifth [given to Allah and His Messenger]. When I had decided to marry Fatimah the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), I had a goldsmith from the Tribe of Qainuqaa go along with me to bring some idhkhir grass that I could sell to the goldsmiths to pay for my wedding feast. While I was preparing the equipment, sacks and ropes, my two she-camels were sitting at the side of an apartment belonging to a man from the Ansar. I returned after collecting together my things and I suddenly found that the humps of my two she-camels had been chopped off, their haunches cut and their livers had been taken. I could not control my eyes [from crying] after I had seen what had taken place to them. I said, “Who did this?” They said, “Hamzah ibn Abdul-Mutalib did it. He is in this house drunk with some of the Ansar with a singing girl and his Companions. She said, ‘O Abu Hamzah, why don’t you attack these she-camels.’ Hamzah got his sword, cut off their humps, ripped their haunches and tore out their livers.” Ali said, “I went until I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and with him was Zaid ibn Haarithah. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came to know from my face that something happened to me. He said, “What is the matter with you?” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, I have never seen a day like today. Hamzah attacked my two camels, cut off their humps, ripped their haunches and he is in a house in the company of some drunkards.” The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called for his cloak. Then he went out walking. Zaid and I followed him until he came to the door of the house wherein was Hamzah. He asked permission to enter and they gave him permission to enter while they were drunk. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reprimanded Hamzah for what he had done. Hamzah’s eyes were all red. Hamzah looked at the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and then he looked at his knees and then he raised his sight and looked at his waist. Then he raised his sight and looked at his face. Hamzah then said, “Aren’t you all just the slaves of my father?” The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then came to know that he was drunk. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then turned on his heels and went out and we also came out along with him.” In the narration by al-Bukhari, he adds the words, “That was before the prohibition of alcohol.” Recorded by al-Bukhari in a number of places, including “The Book of Beverages and Drinks: Chapter on Selling Wood and Grasses,” Hadith #2375, vol. 2, p. 168; “The Book of the Obligation of the Fifth [of the Booty to be Given to Allah and His Messenger]: Chapter on the obligation of the fifth,” Hadith #3091, vol. 2, pp. 385-386. Recorded by Muslim in “The Book of Beverages: Chapter on the Prohibition of Alcohol,” Hadith #1979, vol. 3, pp. 1568-1570.
200 Al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 6, p. 287. Also see vol. 5, pp. 202-203. At that location he mentions the same quote from al-Qafaal that al-Shaukaani had referred to earlier.
201 Recorded by Muslim, “Book of Governance: Chapter on the Obligation of Fulfilling the Oath of Allegiance to the Caliph, the first and then the next,” Hadith #1844, vol. 3, p. 1473.
202 See Tafseer al-Fakhar al-Raazi, vol. 14, p. 174; Rooh al-Maani, vol. 4, p. 177; Tafseer Abi al-Saood, vol. 3, p. 79.
203 From the commentary of Shaikh Abdullah Draaz to al-Shaatibi’s al-Muwaafaqaat, vol. 2, p. 10.
204 The word al-zafin means to dance. The origin of the word means to play and push. See al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Hadith wa al-Athar, vol. 2, p. 305.
205 In al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Hadeeth, it states that al-kibaaraat is the plural of kibaar which in turn is the plural of kabar, being a drum. Another narration has the word al-kinnaaraat which, ibn al-Atheer states, is a lute or a mandolin type instrument.
206 Al-Suyooti mentioned this in al-Durr al-Manthoor and ascribed it to ibn Abi Haatim, Abu al-Shaikh and al-Baihaqi in his Sunan. Ibn Katheer quoted it in his Quranic commentary (vol. 3, p. 178) from ibn Abu Hatim with his chain of narrators and said, “This is a sound chain.”
207 See al-Isaabah fi Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, vol. 2, p. 352.
208 See Taudheeh al-Afkaar li-Maani Tanqeeh al-Athaar, vol. 1, pp. 281-282.
209 Shaikh Abdullah Draaz’s xommentary to al-Shaatibi, al-Muwaafaqaat, vol. 2, p. 50. Also see Nibraas al-Uqool, vol. 1, p. 279 and Fawaatih al-Rahamoot, vol. 2, p. 262.
210 It was not prohibited until the Third Year after the Hijrah, after the Battle of Uhud. See Al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 6, p. 285; al-Bahr al-Muheet, vol. 5, p. 209; Fawaatih al-Rahamoot, vol. 2, p. 262.
211 That is what is apparent from the texts of the Quran and Sunnah. For example, Allah says, “O you who believe! Do not come near the prayer while you are intoxicated, until you know what you are saying” (al-Nisaa 43). This verse explicitly states that drinking was permissible during the early days of Islam, even if the person were to reach the state of drunkenness and loss of senses. If the permissible amount were only that which was less than intoxicating, the words, “until you know what you are saying” would have no meaning to them. See al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 5, p. 202; Tafseer ibn Katheer, vol. 2, p. 270. This is also indicated by the fact that when that verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allah’s crier would say when the prayer was to be commenced, “Let no one who is drunk approach the prayer.” There is also the previously mentioned hadith of Hamzah who had drank until he was drunk and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not reprimand him. There are yet other reports that demonstrate that it was unconditionally permissible at that time. See al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 5, pp. 200-202 and vol. 6, pp. 286-287; Tafseer ibn Katheer, vol. 1, p. 382, vol. 2, pp. 271-272 and vol. 3, pp. 170-180. As for the hadith prohibiting the drunkard from approaching the prayer, it is recorded by Ahmad in his Musnad (vol. 1, p. 53), by Abu Dawood (The Book of Beverages: Chapter on the Prohibition of Wine,” Hadith #3670, vol. 4, pp. 79-80), by al-Nasaa`ee (Book of Beverages: Chapter on the Prohibition of Wine, Hadith #5540, Vol. 8, pp. 286-287) and by al-Tirmidhi (Book of the Commentary on the Quran: Chapter on the Commentary of Soorah al-Maaidah, Hadith #3049, vol. 5, pp. 253-254). In his Quranic commentary (vol. 3, p. 171), ibn Katheer stated, “Ali ibn al-Madeeni and al-Tirmidhi declared this hadith authentic.” Al-Arnaaoot also declared this hadith authentic in his analysis of the hadith of Jaami al-Usool, vol. 5, p. 118.
212 Such was the evidence that it was accepted from them and that there was no misappropriation from it. The same was true for their animal sacrifices, which would be devoured by a fire that came from heaven. See Saheeh Muslim ma Sharh al-Nawawi, vol. 12, pp. 51-53; Fath al-Baari, vol. 6, p. 224.
213 Miftaah Daar al-Saadah, vol. 2, p. 29.
214 See Fath al-Baari, vol. 6, p. 224.
215 Recorded by al-Bukhari (Book on the Obligation of the Fifth: Chapter on the Prophet’s Words, “War Booty Has Been Made Permissible for You,” Hadith #3124, vol. 2, p. 394) and Muslim (The Book of Jihad and Military Expeditions: Chapter on The War Booty Being Made Permissible Only for This Nation, Hadith #1747, vol. 3, p. 1366).
216 See Tafseer al-Tabari, vol. 23, p. 100; Tafseer ibn Katheer, vol. 7, pp. 56-57. There is a difference of opinion as to how many horses there were. In Zaad al-Maseer (vol. 7, p. 128), ibn al-Jauzi stated, “There are a number of different opinions concerning their number. One says thirteen thousand. This was said by Wahb. Another says twenty thousand. Saeed ibn Masrooq stated that. The third view is one thousand steeds. This was stated by ibn al-Saa`ib and Muqaatil. The fourth opinion is that they were twenty steeds. We have related this from Ibraaheem al-Taimi.” Al-Tabari recorded in his Tafseer (vol. 23, p. 99) with his chain on the authority of Saeed ibn Masrooq from Ibraaheem al-Taimi that they were twenty steeds with wings. Ibn Abi Haatim recorded with his chain from Saeed ibn Masrooq also from Ibraaheem al-Taimi who said, “The horses that preoccupied Solomon (peace be upon him) were twenty-thousand steeds that he slaughtered.” Ibn Katheer said, “That is more likely. And Allah knows best.” There are also other opinions concerning their number. See al-Durr al-Manthoor, vol. 5, p. 580; al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 8, pp. 193-194.
217 Zaad al-Maseer, vol. 7, p. 132; al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 8, pp. 193-194.
218 Al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 8, p. 197.
219 See Zaad al-Maseer, vol. 7, p. 131.
220 Tafseer al-Tabari, vol. 23, p. 100.
221 Zaad al-Maseer, vol. 7, p. 132.
222 Tafseer ibn Katheer, vol. 7, p. 75.
223 See Tafseer al-Tabari, vol. 23, p. 100; Tafseer ibn Katheer, vol. 7, p. 57.
224 See Tafseer al-Tabari, vol. 23, p. 100; Tafseer ibn Katheer, vol. 7, p. 57; Al-Durr al-Manthoor, vol. 5, p. 579; Zaad al-Maseer, vol. 7, p. 131; al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 8, p. 195; Fath al-Qadeer, vol. 4, p. 432.
225 Fath al-Qadeer, vol. 4, p. 432.
226 Tafseer ibn Katheer, vol. 7, p. 57; Zaad al-Maseer, vol. 7, p. 132.
227 See Zaad al-Maseer, vol. 7, p. 132.
228 Al-Jaami li-Ahkaam al-Quraan, vol. 8, p. 196.

 

NewsLetter

© 2015 - 2016 All rights reserved Islam Message