Skip to main content

The means to Haram is Haram

The following is a translation from Arabic.

The Shariah Qa'ida (principle) states: 'The means to Haram is forbidden if it were established with the least amount of doubt that it would lead to Haram. If it were merely feared that it would lead to Haram, it would not be Haram'.

The evidence for this principle is reflected in Allah (swt)’s saying: "Do nor revile those who call upon other than Allah lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance." [TMQ 6: 108] insulting the Kuffar is Mubah (permissible), and Allah (swt) has insulted them in the Qur'an. However, if this insult were to lead to the Kuffar insulting Allah (swt), it would become Haram. This is so because insulting Allah (swt) is forbidden. This is how the Shari'ah principle has been deduced, that is: “The means to Haram is forbidden.” However, this means becomes Haram if it led inevitably to Haram. In other words, if such a means were to lead, with the least amount of doubt, to Haram, and if this Haram has been established by Shari'ah, it would become Haram. Therefore, if the means did not lead to Haram, i.e. if it were only feared that it might lead to Haram, such as the outing of a woman without a face cover, where it is feared that it might cause Fitna, the means in this case would not be Haram, because the mere fear that it might lead to Haram is not sufficient to warrant a prohibition. This is the evidence of this principle.

Another similar principle to this one is the following principle: “If one specific item of a Mubah thing leads to harm, that particular item becomes Haram and the thing remains Mubah.”

This is reflected in what Bukhari reported on the authority of Nafi’ who said that Abdullah Ibnu Omar informed him: “People came with the Messenger of Allah (saw) to the land of Thamud Al-Hijr; so they took water from its well and made dough with it. The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered them to spill the water and to give the dough to the animals; he then ordered them to take water from the well which the she camel used to drink from.”

In another narration, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Do not drink anything from its water and do not used that water to make ablution for Salat, whatever dough that you prepared, give to the animals and do not eat anything from it. None of you should go out at night unless he has a companion with him.”

Drinking water is Mubah, but that particular water, that is the water of Thamud, has been made prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (saw) because it led to harm; however, water in general remained Mubah. Also, it is Mubah for a person to go out at night without a companion, but the Messenger of Allah (saw) prohibited anyone from among that army, in that particular night and at that particular place, from going out because it led to harm; apart from this, going out at night without a companion remained Mubah. This serves as evidence that a particular item of the Mubah thing becomes Haram if it led to harm, and the thing in general remains Mubah.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This must be from 'The Islamic Personality juzz 3, right?

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran