Lecture III: Obscure Penetration
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
الصلوة والسلام ولی سیدنا محمد و آله الطیبین الطاهرین و لعنة الله علی اعدائهم الی یوم الدین
رُوِيَ أَبُو بَصِيرٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ : « سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ امْرَأَةٍ تَزَوَّجَهَا رَجُلُ فَوَجَدَ لَهَا زَوْجاً ؟ قَالَ : عَلَيْهِ الْجَلْدُ وَ عَلَيْهَا الرَّجْمُ ، لِأَنَّهُ تَقَدَّمَ بِعِلْمٍ وَ تَقَدَّمَتْ هِيَ بِعِلْمٍ
سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ امْرَأَةٍ تَزَوَّجَهَا رَجُلُ فَوَجَدَ لَهَا زَوْجاً ؟ قَالَ : عَلَيْهِ الْجَلْدُ وَ عَلَيْهَا الرَّجْمُ ، لِأَنَّهُ تَقَدَّمَ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَ تَقَدَّمَتْ هِيَ بِعِلْمٍ ؛ قَالَ : عَلَيْهِ الْجَلْدُ وَ عَلَيْهَا الرَّجْمُ ، لِأَنَّهُ تَقَدَّمَ بِعِلْمٍ وَ تَقَدَّمَتْ هِيَ بِعِلْمٍ
بِعِلْمٍ
بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ
فَوَجَدَ لَهَا زَوْجاً
الوطئ الَّذِي لَيْسَ بِمُسْتَحِقِّ مَعَ عَدَمِ الْعِلْمِ بِالتَّحْرِيمِ
وَ مقتضاه الِاكْتِفَاءِ بالاحتمال وَ إِنْ كَانَ مرجوحا
الوطئ الَّذِي لَيْسَ بِمُسْتَحِقِّ مَعَ ظَنِّ الِاسْتِحْقَاقِ ، وَ مقتضاه كِفَايَةُ الظَّنِّ
الوطئ الَّذِي لَيْسَ بِمُسْتَحِقِّ فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ مَعَ اعْتِقَادِ فَاعِلُهُ الِاسْتِحْقَاقِ وَ مقتضاه الْقَطْعُ بالحلية
سَوَاءُ كَانَ الإعتقاد ظنيّاً أَوْ كَانَ الإعتقاد قطعياً
ثُمَّ إِنَّ صَاحِبَ الْجَوَاهِرِ عَدَلَ عَنْ ظَاهِرِ التَّعْرِيفِ إِلَيَّ تعميم الِاعْتِقَادِ لِلْقَطْعِ وَ الظَّنَّ الَّذِي لَمْ يتنبه صَاحِبُ إِلَيَّ عَدَمِ جَوَازِ الْعَمَلِ بِهِ ، وَ لَوْ بِتَقْصِيرِ مِنْهُ فِي الْمُقَدِّمَاتِ وَ تعميمه أَيْضاً لِلْمُقَصِّرِ فِيمَا اقْتَضَاهُ كأهل الْمَذَاهِبُ الْفَاسِدَةِ وَ غَيْرِ هُمْ
وَ الأولي أَنْ يُقَالَ بِأَنَّهُ الْوَطْءِ الَّذِي لَيْسَ بِمُسْتَحِقِّ مَعَ استناده إِلَيَّ حَجَّةً شَرْعِيَّةٍ
سَواءُ أَ كَانَتِ الْحَجَّةُ هِيَ الْأَصْلِ كَمَا إِذَا كَانَتْ ائرة الْحَرَامِ غَيْرِ مَحْصُورَةُ
أَوْ كَانَ غَيْرُهُ ( الْأَصْلُ ) ، كَمَا إِذَا عَوْلِ عَلِيِّ إِخْبَارُ الْمَرْأَةِ بِعَدَمِ الزَّوْجِ ، وَ كَانَتْ ثِقَةً أَوْ أَفَادَ الإطمئنان ، أَوْ انْقِضَاءِ الْعِدَّةِ أَوْ شَهَادَةِ الْعَدْلَيْنِ بِطَلَاقِ الزَّوْجُ أَوْ مَوْتِهِ ، أَوْ كَانَ قَاطِعاً بالحلية جَهْلًا ، وَ نَحْوِ ذَلِكَ
وَ الَّتِي جَاءَ فِيهَا : قِلَّةُ : فَإِنْ كَانَتْ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ عَلَيْهَا الْعِدَّةُ وَ لَا تَدْرِي كَمْ هِيَ ؟
فَقَالَ : إِذَا عَلِمَتْ أَنَّ عَلَيْهَا الْعِدَّةَ لَزِمَتْهَا الْحُجَّةُ فَتَسْأَلُ حتي تَعْلَمُ
الْوَسَائِلُ : ج18 ، الباب 27 مِنْ أَبْوَابِ حدّ الزِّنَا
فَقَالَ : إِذَا عَلِمَتْ أَنَّ عَلَيْهَا الْعِدَّةَ لَزِمَتْهَا الْحُجَّةُ فَتَسْأَلُ حتی تَعْلَمُ
فَهَذِهِ الْجُمْلَةِ تُعْطِي ضابطة كلّية فِي بَابِ الْعُذْرِ وَ هُوَ لُزُومِ وُجُودِ الْحُجَّةُ فِي ارْتِكَابِ الْعَمَلِ مُطْلَقاً ، بَلْ يُسْتَفَادُ مِنْ هَذِهِ الرِّوَايَةِ أَنَّهُ لَا يُوجَدُ فِي أَمْثَالِ هَذِهِ الْمَسَائِلِ جَاهِلُ بِالْحُكْمِ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ، فَقَدْ جَاءَ فِيهَا : قِلَّةُ : أَ رَأَيْتَ إِنْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ بِجَهَالَةٍ
قَالَ فَقَالَ : مَا مِنِ امْرَأَةِ الْيَوْمَ مِنْ نِسَاءِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إِلَّا وَ هِيَ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ عَلَيْهَا عِدَّةً فِي طَلَاقٍ أَوْ مَوْتٍ وَ لَقَدْ كُنَّ نِسَاءُ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ يَعْرِفْنَ ذَلِكَ ، فَإِذَا كَانَ لُزُومِ الْعِدَّةُ مِنَ الواضحات فَحَرُمَتْ الزِّنَا أَوْضَحُ
لَوْ عَقَدَ عَلِيِّ امْرَأَةُ مُحْرِمَةُ كزوجة الْوَلَدِ وَ الْأَبِ وَ الْمُرْضِعَةُ جَاهِلًا بالموضوع فَوَطِئَهَا سَقَطَ عَنْهُ الْحَدُّ ، وَ أَمَّا لَوْ كَانَ جَاهِلًا بِالْحُكْمِ فَهُوَ لَيْسَ بمعذور حَسَبَ صَحِيحَةُ زَيْدِ الْكُنَاسِيِّ ، لِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ يَعْرِفُهَا عَامَّةُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ
لَوْ عَقَدَ عَلِيِّ امْرَأَةُ مُحْرِمَةُ كزوجة الْوَلَدِ وَ الْأَبِ وَ الْمُرْضِعَةُ جَاهِلًا بالموضوع فَوَطِئَهَا سَقَطَ عَنْهُ الْحَدُّ
وَ أَمَّا لَوْ كَانَ جَاهِلًا بِالْحُكْمِ فَهُوَ لَيْسَ بمعذور حَسَبَ صَحِيحَةُ زَيْدِ الْكُنَاسِيِّ ، لِأَنَّ هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ يَعْرِفُهَا عَامَّةُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ
مَنْ وَجَدَ عَلِيُّ فِرَاشِهِ امْرَأَةٍ فَاعْتَقَدَ أَنَّهَا زَوْجَتُهُ ، فَوَطِئَهَا ، سَقَطَ الْحَدِّ عَنِ الطَّرَفَيْنِ
سَقَطَ الْحَدِّ عَنِ الطَّرَفَيْنِ ، وَ إِنْ كَانَ مِنْ أَحَدِ الطَّرَفَيْنِ
سَقَطَ عَنْهُ ، وَ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ ثُبُوتِ الْحَدِّ عَلِيُّ كُلْ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ وَ الْمَرْأَةِ فَرْعٍ عَدَمِ المعذورية ، فالمشتبه مَعْذُورُ دُونَ غَيْرِهِ
لَوْ تَشَبَّهَتْ امْرَأَةٍ بِزَوْجَةٍ رَجُلٍ فَوَطِئَهَا فَعَلَيْهَا الْحَدَّ دُونَهُ لِمَا مَرَّ مِنْ أَنَّ ثُبُوتِ الْحَدِّ عَلِيُّ كُلْ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ وَ الْمَرْأَةِ فَرْعٍ عَدَمِ المعذورية فالمشتبه مَعْذُورُ دُونَ غَيْرِهِ
عَنْ أَبِي رُوحُ : « أَنَّ امْرَأَةً تَشَبَّهَتْ بِأَمَةٍ لِرَجُلٍ وَ ذَلِكَ لَيْلًا فَوَاقَعَهَا وَ هُوَ يُرِي أَنَّهَا جاريتة ، فَرَفَعَ إِلَيَّ عُمَرُ ، فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَيَّ عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامَ فَقَالَ : اضْرِبِ الرَّجُلَ حَدّاً فِي السِّرِّ ، وَ اضْرِبِ الْمَرْأَةَ حَدّاً فِي الْعَلَانِيَةِ
الْوَسَائِلُ : ج 18 ، الْبَابُ 38 مِنْ أَبْوَابِ حدّ الزِّنَا ، الحديث1
فَرَفَعَ إِلَيَّ عُمَرُ ، فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَيَّ عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامَ فَقَالَ : اضْرِبِ الرَّجُلَ حَدّاً فِي السِّرِّ ، وَ اضْرِبِ الْمَرْأَةَ حَدّاً فِي الْعَلَانِيَةِ
فَفِي نَكَتَ النِّهَايَةِ : سَمِعْتُ مِنْ بَعْضُ فُقَهَائِنَا أَنَّهُ أَرَادَ ايهام الْحَاضِرِينَ الْأَمْرِ بِإِقَامَةِ الْحَدِّ عَلِيُّ الرَّجُلِ سِرّاً ، وَ لَمْ يُقَمِ الْحَدُّ عَلَيْهِ استصلاحا وَ حسماً للمادّة لِئَلَّا يُتَّخَذَ الْجَاهِلِ ، الشُّبْهَةُ عُذْراً
وَ مَنِ الْغَرَائِبِ مَا نَقَلَهُ الشَّيْخُ عَنْ أَبِي حنيفه ، – وَ عینه فِي كِتَابِ الْحُدُودِ – حَيْثُ قَالَ : إذا عَقْدِ النِّكَاحِ عَلَيَّ ذَاتَ مَحْرَمَ لَهُ ، كَأُمِّهِ وَ بِنْتِهِ وَ خَالَتَهُ وَ عَمَّتَهُ مَنْ نَسَبَ أَوْ رَضَاعُ أَوْ أمرأة ابْنَهُ أَوْ أَبِيهِ أَوْ تَزَوَّجَ بخامسة أَوِ امْرَأَةً لَهَا زَوْجُ وَ وَطِئَهَا أَوْ وَطْئِي امْرَأَةٍ بَعْدَ أَنْ بَانَتْ بِاللِّعَانِ أَوْ بِالطَّلَاقِ مَعَ الْعِلْمِ بِالتَّحْرِيمِ فَعَلَيْهِ الْقَتْلُ فِي وَطْءِ ذَاتَ مُحْرِمُ ، وَ الْحَدُّ فِي وطيء الْأَجْنَبِيَّةِ وَ بِهِ قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يُفَصَّلْ وَ قَالٍ : وَ قَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ : لَا حَدَّ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ هَذَا حتي قَالَ لَوْ اسْتَأْجَرَ امْرَأَةً لَيَزْنِي بِهَا فزني بِهَا لَا حَدَّ عَلَيْهِ ، فَإِنْ اسْتَأْجَرَهَا لِلْخِدْمَةِ فَوَطِئَهَا فَعَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ
الْخِلَافُ : 5 / 386
وَ نَقَلَ ابْنُ رُشْدُ مَا نَقَلَهُ الشَّيْخُ عَنْ أَبِي حنيفه حَيْثُ قَالَ : وَ مِنْهَا مَا يَرَاهُ أبوحنيفه مِنْ دَرَأَ الْحَدِّ عَنِ واطيء الْمُسْتَأْجِرِ ، وَ الْجُمْهُورِ عَلِيِّ خِلَافِ ذَلِكَ ، وَ قَوْلُهُ فِي ذَلِكَ ضَعِيفُ وَ مَرْغُوبُ عَنْهُ وَ كَأَنَّهُ رَأْيِ أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْمَنْفَعَةَ أَشْبَهْتَ سَائِرِ الْمَنَافِعَ الَّتِي اسْتَأْجَرَهَا عَلَيْهَا فَدَخَلَتِ الشُّبْهَةِ وَ أَشْبَهَ نِكَاحَ الْمُتْعَةِ
بداية المجتهد : 2 / 425
Lecture II: Is Nikāḥ Wājib or Mustaḥabb? (intellect)
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
الصلوة والسلام علی سیدنا محمد و آله الطاهرین الطیبین و لعنة الله علی اعدائهم الی یوم الدین
{وَأَنكِحُوا الأَيَامَى مِنكُمْ وَالصَّالِحِينَ مِنْ عِبَادِكُمْ وَإِمَائِكُمْ إِن يَكُونُوا فُقَرَاء يُغْنِهِمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ}
أکثر أَهْلِ النَّارِ الْعُزَّابُ
اَلنّكاحُ سُنَّتي فَمَن اعرَضَ عَنْ سُنّتي فَلَيسَ مِنّي
ترک النکاحِ مکروهٌ
{قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللّهِ الَّتِيَ أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالْطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ}
{قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللّهِ الَّتِيَ أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالْطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ}
{قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللّهِ الَّتِيَ أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالْطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ}
هذه سُنَّتي فَمَن رَغِبَ عَنْ سُنّتي فَلَيسَ مِنّي
{قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللّهِ الَّتِيَ أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالْطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ}
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلاَ يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ}
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ}
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلاَ يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ}
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ}
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ}
{وَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُشْرِكِينَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُم بِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ كَافِرُونَ}
أکثر أَهْلِ النَّارِ الْعُزَّابُ
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ}
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلاَ يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ}
{لِمَ تحَُرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ}
Lecture II: Conditions for the duty of Zakāt to Subsist
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
الصلوة والسلام علی سیدنا محمد و آله الطیبین الطاهرین و لعنة الله علی اعدائهم الی یوم الدین
وَ يَشْتَرِطُ فِى وُجُوبِهَا أُمُورِ
{ خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَ تُزَكِّيهِمْ }
{ اعْلَمُوا أَنَّما غَنِمْتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ }
جَعَلَ اللَّهُ الزَّكَاةَ فِى أَمْوَالِ الاغنياء لِلْفُقَرَاءِ
لَيْسَ فِى مَالِ الْخُمُسِ زَكَاةُ
لَيْسَ عَلَى مَالِ الامام زَكَاةُ
الاول الْبُلُوغِ فلاتجب عَلَى غَيْرِ الْبَالِغِ فِى تَمَامِ الْحَوْلِ فِيمَا يُعْتَبَرُ فِيهِ الْحَوْلُ
يَتَعَلَّقُ الزَّكَاةِ بمال الصَّبِىِّ وَ يَجِبُ عَلَى الْوَلِىُّ أَدَائِهَا
{ أَقِيمُوا الصَّلاةَ وَ أَتَوْا الزَّكَاةِ }
فِى كُلِّ أَرْبَعِينَ شَاةً شَاةُ
{ خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَ تُزَكِّيهِمْ }
{ تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَ تُزَكِّيهِمْ }
{ أَقِيمُوا الصَّلاةَ }
يحرم بيع العذره
من العذره سحت
ان اللَّه عز وجل فرض للفقراء فى اموال الاغنياء فريضه لا يحمدون الا بأدائها وهي الزكاة بها حقنوا دمائهم وبها سمّوا المسلمين
Lecture II: The Value and Merit of Jihād
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
الصلوة والسلام علی سیدنا محمد و آله الطاهرین و لعنة الله علی اعدائهم الی یوم الدین
The discussion of jihād begins with the value and merit of the act.
With regards to value and merit, all Islāmic acts are not on the same level. Some acts have a very lofty value and merit, and jihād is one, such that imām al-ṣādiq – upon him peace - said:
فَوْقَ كُلِّ بِرٍّ بِرُّ حتيٰ يُقْتَلَ الرَّجُلُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَيْسَ فَوْقَهُ بِرُّ
above every goodness is a goodness until the man is killed in the way of God, so there is no goodness above that.
al-wasāil ul-shīʾa, vol. 15., ch. 1., p. 16-17., H 21.
But jihād in God’s way is to such a degree that no other act reaches it in merit and reward. If it is considered by virtue of -
أَفْضَلُ الْأَعْمَالِ أحمز هَا
the best of actions are the hardest of them
biḥār, from the Prophet Muḥammad
- then because jihād involves much hardship, entering this field is not in the capacity of everyone. It requires individuals of perfect faith who have come with their lives to be present in jihād, to give up to their last drop of blood in the way of God. This is a very meritorious act.
In the Noble Qurʾān as well, there is encouragement for individuals due to the difficulties of jihād.
{ ذلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ لا يُصِبْهُمْ ظَمَأُ وَ لا نَصَبُ وَ لا مَخْمَصَةُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَ لا يطئُون مَوْطِئاً يَغِيظُ الْكُفَّارَ وَ لا يَنالُونَ مِنْ عَدُوٍّ نَيْلًا إِلَّا كُتِبَ لَهُمْ بِهِ عَمَلُ صٰالحٌ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ }
ẓamaʿ means thirst, naṣb means harship, makhmaṣa means hunger; these are all combined in jiḥād.
{ ذلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ لا يُصِبْهُمْ ظَمَأُ وَ لا نَصَبُ وَ لا مَخْمَصَةُ }
Thirst, hardship and hunger do not afflict them ever. And they do not set foot where it would anger the heathens, and no harm afflicts the enemy except that a good deed is written for them.
{ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ وَ لا يُنْفِقُونَ نَفَقَةً صَغِيرَةً وَ لا كَبِيرَةً وَ لا يَقْطَعُونَ وادِياً إِلاَّ كُتِبَ لَهُمْ لِيَجْزِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنَ ما كانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ }
However much they spend in this way, much or little, and any high or low land they traverse, all these will be recorded in their scroll of deeds, so that God will reward them better than their strife.
This verse is one of many in sūra al-Tawba. There is much of these verses, and also in aḥādīth, which comfort the heart of warriors and promises them and prepares them. The job is not easy, and so the reward is very great.
The Prophet - God’s peace and blessings upon him and his household – and the Imāms – upon them peace – all had this hope to arrive at this level, such is the level of the martyrs and warriors. For example, the Prophet said:
مَقَامُ الرَّجُلُ فِي الصَّفِّ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ عِبَادَةِ رَجُلٍ سِتِّينَ عَاماً
The status of the man in the columns is greater than the worship of a man for sixty years.
Then he says:
وَ الَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ وَدِدْتُ أَنَّ أَغْزُو فَأَقْتُلَ ، ثُمَّ أَغْزُو فَأَقْتُلَ ثُمَّ أَغْزُو فَأَقْتُلَ
by the One who holds the soul of Muḥammad in His Hand, I would like to battle then be killed, then battle then be killed, then battle then be killed.
All these Islāmic literature is to inspire the spirit of jiḥād in every human, every Muslim, in the heart – for jihād is not just an act, but is rooted in the heart, in faith -, and to create that hope and enthusiasm, for without this hope and enthusiasm, the deed will not be accomplished.
كَانَ مِنْ دُعَائِهِ ( عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ ) إِذَا ابْتِدَاءً بِالدُّعَاءِ بَدْءُ بِالتَّحْمِيدِ لِلَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلٍ وَ الثَّنَاءِ عَلَيْهِ وَ قَالَ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الاول بِلَا أَوَّلِ كَانَ قَبْلَهُ وَ آخِرُ بِلَا آخَرَ يَكُونُ بَعْدَهُ . . . آخرش : نَحْمَدُهُ حَمْداً نسعد بِهِ فِي السُّعَدَاءِ فِي أَوْلِيَائِهِ وَ نَصِيرَ بِهِ فِي نَظَمَ الشُّهَدَاءِ بِسُيُوفِ أَعْدَائِهِ إِنَّهُ وَلِيُّ حُمَيْدٍ
{إِنَّ اللَّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُم}
{ يُجَاهِدُونَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ }
{ يُقاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ }
{فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَ يُقتَلون}
{ وَعْداً عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التوريٰة والانجيل وَ الْقُرْآنِ }
{ وَعْداً عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التوريٰة والانجيل وَ الْقُرْآنِ }
{ وَ مَنْ أُوفِي بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللَّهِ }
{ فَاسْتَبْشِرُوا بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بايَعْتُمْ }
{ فَاسْتَبْشِرُوا بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بايَعْتُمْ }
{لا نُقيضُ ولا نستقيض}
{ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الَّذِينَ يُقاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ صَفًّا كَأَنَّهُمْ بُنْيانُ مَرْصُوصُ }
{ يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْواهِهِمْ وَ اللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَ لَوْ كَرِهَ الْكافِرُونَ }
{هو الذي أرسل رسوله بالهدي والدين الحق ليظهره علي الدين كلّه ولو كره المشركون}
{لم تقولون ما لا تفعلون}
{ كَبُرَ مَقْتاً عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ تَقُولُوا ما لا تَفْعَلُونَ }
{ انَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الَّذِينَ يُقاتِلُونَ }
{ يا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلِيِّ تِجارَةٍ تُنْجِيكُمْ مِنْ عَذابِ الْيَمِّ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَ رَسُولِهِ وَ تُجاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَ أَنْفُسِكُمْ ذلِكُمْ خَيْرُ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ ، يَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَ يُدْخِلْكُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الانهار وَ مَساكِنَ طَيِّبَةً فِي جَنَّاتِ عَدْنٍ ذلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ }
{ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلِيِّ تِجَارَةُ }
{ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلِيِّ تِجَارَةُ }
{ تُنْجِيكُمْ مِنْ عَذابِ الْيَمُّ }
{ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلِيِّ تِجارَةٍ تُنْجِيكُمْ مِنْ عَذابِ الْيَمُّ }
{ تُجاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَ أَنْفُسِكُمْ }
{ تُجاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَ أَنْفُسِكُمْ }
{ ذلِكُمْ خَيْرُ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ }
{يغفر لكم ذنوبكم ويدخلكم جنات تجري من تحتها الانهار و مساكن طيبة في جنات عدن ذلك الفوز العظيم}
{ ذلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ }
{ ذلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ }
{ وَ أَخِّرِي تُحِبُّونَها نَصْرُ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَ فَتْحُ قَرِيبُ وَ بَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ }
{ وَ أَخِّرِي تُحِبُّونَها نَصْرُ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَ فَتْحُ قَرِيبُ وَ بَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ }
عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ ) قَالَ : أَلَا أُخْبِرُكَ بالاسلام أَصْلِهِ وَ فَرْعِهِ وَ ذورة صنامه
مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ أَعْلَاهُ
قُلْتُ بليٰ ، جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ
قَالَ : أَمَّا أَصْلُهُ فَالصَّلَاةُ وَ فَرْعُهُ الزَّكَاةُ
أَمَّا أَصْلُهُ فَالصَّلَاةُ وَ فَرْعُهُ الزَّكَاةُ وَ ذِرْوَةُ صنامه الْجِهَادِ
Lecture I: Is Nikāḥ Wājib or Mustaḥabb? (thaqalayn)
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
الصلوة والسلام علی سیدنا محمد و اهل بیته الطاهرین و لعنة الله علی اعدائهم الی یوم الدین
It is famed amongst the fellowship, in fact a consensus, that nikāḥ is favoured (mustaḥabb). It is intrinsically favoured too, and when intention to worship is added to the act its merit is greater, and if there is no such intention, it is a desideratum of the Sacred Legislator
They have relied on the aḥādīth on this issue, which are mutawātir (successively transmitted), that nikāḥ is the desideratum of the Sacred Legislator.
ما بُنِیَ فِی الاِسلامِ بَناءٌ اَحَبُّ اِلی اللّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ مِن التَزویجِ
A structure more beloved of God – mighty and tremendous – has not been built in Islām than marriage.
مَا بُنِیَ بِنَاءِ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ التزویج
No structure was built more meritorious than marriage.
Somebody builds a mosque or a school on the one hand, or marries a couple on the other, the latter deed is more valuable than the former. In fact, the aḥādīth give evidence that if one owns the world and all that is in it, but does not have a wife, he has nothing.
Someone came to imām al-bāqir – upon him peace – and the Imām asked him: do you have a wife or not?
He said: no.
He said: if God grants me the world so that I spend the night without a wife, I will not take it.
Then he gave him seven dinārs and said: go and marry. No structure was built more beloved by God – mighty and tremendous – in Islām than marriage. If someone who has a spouse and prays 2 rakʾa ṣalāt, this is more meritorious than one who is celibate and keeps watch his nights and fasts his days.
These aḥādīth are in the first couple of chapters of the chapters of nikāḥ in al-wasāil ul-shīʾa. The aḥādīth are successive. So, nikāḥ is desired by God and the Apostle of God. So they have said it is intrinsically favoured. So far so good.
Much reward has been stored in nikāḥ. However, there are sound-chained (ṣaḥīḥ ul-sanad) aḥādīth and apparently-literal (ẓāhir ul-dalāla) and successive that refusing nikāḥ is forbidden. The aḥādīth are strongly emphatic and elaborate as well. But the elders and the fellowship have held them to signify disfavour (kirāha), and solving this problem is very difficult, to be honest.
رُذالُ مَوتاکُم العُزّاب
the worst of your death are the celibates
Try taking it as disfavour!
أکثر أَهْلِ النَّارِ الْعُزَّابُ
most Fire-dwellers are celibates
Try taking it as disfavour!
اَلنّكاحُ سُنَّتي فَمَن اعرَضَ عَنْ سُنّتي فَلَيسَ مِنّي
nikāḥ is my tradition so whoever refuses my tradition, then he is not from me.
Try taking it as disfavour!
There are some aḥādīth that both ʾāmma and khāṣṣa have narrated.
The Prophet was told that some of your companions have become self-abnegators (ahl ul-riyāḍa). Some do not sleep their nights and some are forever fasting and some have abandoned women.
fayḍ al-kāshānī says that the Prophet was so cross that he rushed towards the mosque, dragging his mantle on the ground.
الصلاة جامعتَین
bilāl al-ḥabashī would call this when an important declaration, such as jiḥād, was to be announced. So, the people were immediately gathered and there was no ṣalāt but everyone gathered.
The Prophet stood on the first step, meaning that the issue was very important. He said: I who am your prophet sleep at night. I who am your prophet do not always fast, and I eat food. I who am your prophet have a wife. nikāḥ is my tradition so whoever refuses my tradition, then he is not from me.
Then there are aḥādīth that he took them and severely reprimanded them. Then they said: Apostle of God! we have sworn to be like this.
He said: but have you not read the Qurʾān?!
{لا يُؤاخِذُكُمُ اَللهُ بِالَغْوِ فِي اَيْمانِكُمْ}
This is a worthless oath, and it was an oath, not an offering (nadhr) which would have preference. He said this is a worthless oath, and they should not repeat this. Meaning, this oath does not even have penance (kaffāra).
Try taking it as disfavour!
The verse came:
{قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللّهِ الَّتِيَ أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالْطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ}
Try taking it as disfavour!
And these are very problematic. And there are no conflicting evidence. Because these aḥādīth say that nikāḥ has reward, and there is no conflicting evidence against holding its obligation. It is obligatory and it has reward. Like ṣalāt. Truly, two rakʾa morning ṣalāt entails paradise, and it is like jiḥād in God’s way, but it is obligatory too. Thus, if these latter aḥādīth are taken to signify the prohibition of refusing nikāḥ, it does not conflict with the aḥādīth which talk of its reward, at least apparently.
Or “refusing nikāḥ” could be taken as actually denying nikāḥ.
One came to the Prophet – God’s peace and blessings upon him and his household – and he asked: do you have a wife?
He said: no.
He said: are you affluent?
He said: yes, Apostle of God! God-be-thanked, my situation is really good.
The Prophet said: what a bad person you are! You have become a Nazarene and taken up monasticism. Go take a wife.
So, even if it is taken as “refusal of marriage”, it is to be a “refusal in action”, which is a rather forced interpretation, and is not possible.
If it is taken to mean that where nikāḥ is not enacted, it makes way for zinā, this too is a forced interpretation. Therefore, however one thinks how to deal with these aḥādīth, one is dumbfounded. But is a famed opinion, in fact consensus has been claimed, for example, by the author of al-jawāhir al-kalām fī sharḥi sharāyiʾ ul-islām and others, that nikāḥ is favoured and desired, whether with the intention of worship or not. But one set of aḥādīth say that nikāḥ is desired, and the other set of aḥādīth say that it is desired to the verge of obligation. The claimants of consensus must bring forth a specifying qualifier. For example, how is the ḥadīth, ‘most Fire-dwellers are celibates’ going to be qualified? Is it even specifiable or not? They have said a lot: it is consensus, and it is [mere] tradition – referring to the extensions of the religion (furūʾ ul-dīn), since basically tradition means the extensions. All the extensions of the religion are obligatory, and they are the traditions of God too. Often the word sunna (tradition) is used to refer to that which is not in the Qurʾān and is not an ordinance (farīḍa) of God. But the word sunna has been used often to refer to that which is in the aḥādīth of the Immaculates – upon them blessings and peace – but not in the Qurʾān. Therefore, the word sunna cannot be relied upon naively, and nothing is proven. For example, the Prophet saying that whoever does this favoured act, good!, if not then they are just not Muslim. Such a thing is not possible. For example, saying whoever prayed the nawāfil, good!, if not then they are just not Muslim. Also:
{قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللّهِ الَّتِيَ أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالْطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ}
taking the above as [merely] favoured, and saying that whoever wishes to be monastic and ascetic, let them be! Of course, Islāmic asceticism is a different case:
I serve the efforts of one under the blue spheres
Who is free from the colours of servitude!
- Hāfez-e Shīrāzī, Persian poet
This is Islāmic and ethical asceticism. But if one wishes to torture oneself, such as, say, forty-day [dervish] retreats. And then the above verse is brought against them, but they object to what and how it signifies.
This problem has not been touched, and it has been taken as granted that nikāḥ is merely favoured. Some, like the author of urwat ul wuthqā have said that nikāḥ is liked on consensus, and others have added ‘as a requisite of the religion’ (bi ḍarūrat-in min al-dīn). Well, what is to be done with the ḥadīth, ‘most Fire-dwellers are celibate?’ It is taken as unfavoured. Why? Why disfavour and where is its conflicting report? Meaning, when the Prophet – God’s peace and blessings upon him and his household – came to the mosque, stood on the first step, is this specifiable and possible to interpret as favoured?
The Prophet said: People! I who am a prophet have a wife. This is my tradition, so whoever refuses my tradition is not from me.
This is interpreted as liked. The acts of the Prophet are deemed as favoured. To be honest, this is very problematic. This problem is extremely hard.
Another problem:
{وَأَنكِحُوا الأَيَامَى مِنكُمْ وَالصَّالِحِينَ مِنْ عِبَادِكُمْ وَإِمَائِكُمْ إِن يَكُونُوا فُقَرَاء يُغْنِهِمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ}
There must not be a celibate in the Islāmic society. If they can themselves, the woman takes a husband and the man takes a wife, and if they cannot themselves, the government must do so, and if it does not, people must do so. This -
{وَأَنكِحُوا الأَيَامَى}
- is interpreted as favoured. It is favoured, and because of -
ما بُنِیَ فِی الاِسلامِ بَناءٌ اَحَبُّ اِلی اللّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ مِن التَزویجِ
- God will reward you greatly. But if you could marry an unmarried couple and you do not, no problem! The above verse is merely favour. Why?
The author of al-jawāhir says, at the beginning of the Book of Zakāt, that there are only two propietary obligations: khums and zakāt. The penances (kaffārāt) are explained away as accidental (in the philosophical sense), and irrelevant to the propietary obligations. He says, it is well-established amongst the fellowship that it is exclusively just the two. On the other hand, there are perhaps over a hundred aḥādīth on the law of assistance (muwāsāt).
{وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ}
They say: take it as favoured.
{لينفق ذوسعة من سعته و من قدر عليه رزقه ُ فلينفق مما آتيه ُ اللّه}
You have one way and it is sufficient. Give your son a wife, it is very good. Give your daughter a husband. But what about the sons and daughters of people? This verse says that if you could, you must help them create families. They say: no, take it as favoured.
{أَرَأَيْتَ الَّذِي يُكَذِّبُ بِالدِّينِ (1) فَذَلِكَ الَّذِي يَدُعُّ الْيَتِيمَ (2) وَلَا يَحُضُّ عَلَى طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ (3)؛}
The Qurʾān mentions all these things, if you do not undertake these, you basically reject the resurrection! They say: take it as favoured.
{(؛فَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُصَلِّينَ (4) الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَن صَلَاتِهِمْ سَاهُونَ (5) الَّذِينَ هُمْ يُرَاؤُونَ (6}
This, they say: take as forbidden.
{وَيَمْنَعُونَ الْمَاعُونَ}
This, they say: take as favoured.
Woe to that Muslim pretender and woe to those pseudo-Muslims who can give husbands to girls and wives to boys, and they do not. In fact, the exegetes have mentioned a small part of it. For example, if he can lend his cloak or carpet for an hour and he does not. Woe to this pseudo-Muslim! Then they say that the verse -
{الَّذِينَ هُمْ يُرَاؤُونَ}
- is to be taken as forbidden and -
{وَيَمْنَعُونَ الْمَاعُونَ}
- is to be taken as favoured. How can this be correct?
al-kulaynī in al-kāfī, vol. 2., has over 500 aḥādīth about the assistance law. One such ḥadīth, which is sound-chained, is:
they bring him on the Day of Judgment, his eyes hollowed in and ‘despairing in God’s mercy’ written on his forehead, clad in chains, and the Lord Himself shames him and says:
this is a traitor to me and to my apostle.
Then God gives the reason, saying that he could have relieved people from their burdens but did not. Then He says: take him to Gehenna.
Take it as favoured! What is to be done?!
On the one hand, the likes of the author of al-jawāhir and other elders say that the law of assistance is favoured.
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلاَ يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ}
al-ṭabāṭabāī says in al-mīzān that the verse refers to the one who sees the poverty, social and individual, but gathers wealth and stores his money in the bank. Before they would turn them into treasure [like bullion]. The Qurʾān says:
{فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ}
On the Day of Resurrection, his money is brought and the money-hoarder is burnt with it, and they will say: taste it!
{هذا ما كَنَزْتُمْ لِأَنْفُسِكُمْ فَذُوقُوا ما كُنْتُمْ تَكْنِزُونَ}
They say: take it as favoured!
And so, the author of al-jawāhir says that there are only two propietary obligations: one khums and the other zakāt. For example, when the exegetes arrive at the verse -
{وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ وَلاَ يُنفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَبَشِّرْهُم بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ}
- they interpret ‘whosoever does not pay his/her zakāt’.
It has nothing to do with zakāt! To interpret it so is, in all honesty, very problematic. Just as al-ṭabāṭabāī did not interpret it so, but rather as those who turn money into treasure. Like today, where the money is stored in the bank, and he has no need for the money, and the boys must be given wives and the daughters must be gived husbands, and he has to establish a family, and he does not do so.
nifāq (charitable spending) is a etymologically derived from faqr (poverty) and al-ṭabāṭabāī translates as the emptiness of poverty, whether social or individual. Now, his discussion is purely exegetical, and he does not speak of it as a fiqhī question, e.g. what must be done and what is the law of assistance? al-ṭabāṭabāī is an exegete and wishes to elucidate the nature of exegesis, and so he has not spoken about these matters. Now, in all truth, what is to be done with the law of assistance?
whoever wakes at morning and does not strive for the affairs of the Muslims, then he is not a Muslim.
Take it as favoured! Truly, if one could buy a house for their niece and a boy, so they marry, is this better or visiting Mecca or Karbalā? This visiting Mecca is favoured – and now it has been renovated and has become all formalities. In fact, if the law of assistance were to be implemented, then no one would become obliged-to-Ḥajj (wājib ul-ḥajj), let alone for them to register twenty years in advance! This shows that people have the money. This single ʾumra (ʾumra mufarada) has such a loud press. It has highly rewarded. For each circumambulation, the reward is 60,000 good deeds and there are 60,000 levels and 60,000 sins are wiped. But the aḥādīth also say:
قَضَاءُ حَاجَةِ الْمُؤْمِنِ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ طَوَافٍ وَطَوَافٍ حَتَّى عَدَّ عَشْراً
the fulfilment of a faithful’s need is more meritorious than circumambulation and circumambulation even if ten times.
Take it as favoured!
Yes, the difference is that the law of assistance must be spent at one’s discretion while the the law of khums and zakāt are extracted as tax.
{خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً}
If the Islāmic government becomes aware, it will extract the zakāt. Just as the Prophet – God’s peace and blessings be upon him and his household -, after establishing the government, extracted the zakāt by force. khums is the same. If the Islāmic government could, it would extract the khums by force. In fact, Imām al-Zamān – may God hasten his reappearance – has a share in this wealth. The poor have shares in the zakāt, and a tenth belongs to them. But in the law of assistance, the poor do not have shares, and this must give the poor-in-life a share.
One came to imām al-ṣādiq – upon him peace – and said: Son of the Apostle of God! you have sixty-thousand followers, so why do you not revolt?
He said: do my followers seek the fulfilment of their needs in each other’s pockets?
He was surprised and said: Son of the Apostle of God! What is this you are saying?
The Imām clutched his [own] waist and said: you are not shīʾa and you are not Muslim.
Examples like this are many, and not just one or two.
al-kulaynī, in uṣūl ul-kāfī, vol. 2., has 500 aḥādīth about the law of assistance and the jurists have taken them all as favoured. They have said that Islām has this law of assistance, but it is merely favoured. In fact, there is only one verse in the Qurʾān about the technical zakāt:
{خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوالِهِمْ صَدَقَةً}
About the technical khums, also, there is just one verse:
{وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّمَا غَنِمْتُم مِّن شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلّهِ خُمُسَهُ}
But there are over a thousand verses in the Qurʾān about the law of assistance, which has been named zakāt. This verse:
{وَوَيْلٌ لِّلْمُشْرِكِينَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُم بِالْآخِرَةِ هُمْ كَافِرُونَ}
The obligation of zakāt was revealed in Medīna, and there was no zakāṭ obligation in Mecca, and yet the above verse is a Meccan verse. Basically, in the Qurʾān, zakāt is equivalent to the law of assistance, and being of service to others. In Islām, there is no autocracy or selfishness. Humans must be altruistic.
- Human beings are members of a whole,
- In creation of one essence and soul.
- If one member is afflicted with pain,
- Other members uneasy will remain.
- If you’ve no sympathy for human pain,
- The name of human you cannot retain!
- - Saʾdī-e Shīrāzī, Persian poet
The Qurʾān says that ‘the name of Muslim you cannot retain’. What is to be done with this?
And so, the first issue in Kitāb al-Nikāḥ is a very problematic issue. Even if the other route is taken, everyone will be responsible: both the lecturer, and the students, and the poor, and the affluent, and basically a new fiqh will be granted! And so take the verse -
{وَأَنكِحُوا الأَيَامَى}
- as favoured, and make life simple, and this is exactly what they have done. But let this be discussed! Let the discussion be about boys getting wives and girls getting husbands. Is it obligatory or favoured? This ethical corruption which threatens the Islāmic society is due to the girls without husbands on the excuse of going to university and boys without wives who lack the means. So what is to be done?
A youth had gone to a doctor – and God curse this doctor – who told the youth that your illness and depression is because you are celibate. Now that you cannot find a wife, go date a girlfriend. Anyway society is a dating club, so go and get a couple of these girls as girlfriends, you will feel better. If boys had been given wives and marriages had been healthy marriages and not hellish marriages, and girls were married young, this case – which the Qurʾān calls khudn – such as zinā, would not have occurred. This ‘most Fire-dwellers are celibate’ is right now today. These celibates are at each other, under the label of girlfriend-boyfriend, and it is gradually becoming a norm. This is the fault of society. First, it is their own fault, and then the government, and then society at large.
It was imagined that when the Islāmic government comes forth, the law of assistance would be implemented and no girl would be without a husband and no boy would be without a wife. But now, the situation is reversed. One must be thirty years of age before one can be eligible to marry!
Lecture II: Conditions for Ḥadd al-Zinā to subsist
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
الصلوة و السلام علی سیدنا محمد و آله الطاهرین المعصومین و لعنة الله علی اعدائهم الی یوم الدین
The discussion is about the zānī, who clearly has ḥadd applied to them in Islām. However, the discussion now is: what are the conditions of the zānī and what are the conditions of the ḥadd?
It should be known that every subject has a set of general conditions and a set of special conditions.
General Conditions for the Ḥadd of Zinā
The general conditions are the same which apply in ṣalāt, in the obligation of ṣawm, and other obligations, which are either call general conditions or general affairs, such as: intellect, adulthood, knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the predicate-ruling, capability and free-choice [non-duress]. These are all effectual in zinā.
Now, the question is whether it is necessary to provide extra evidence for the application of these conditions in zinā, or is the set of evidence provided for these conditions in other obligations, such as the obligation of ṣawm, ṣalāṭ and the rest enough?
It seems it is enough. Once these four [1. intellect, 2. adulthood, 3. knowledge, 4. free-choice] are proved as conditions for obligations generally, it entails that they are conditions for zinā as well, and so there is no need to give separate evidence for the applicability of each in zinā, and then for each in sodomy (liwāṭ). The evidence for general applicability is enough. What are the evidence for general applicability?
For example,
وضع عن امتی ما اکرهوا علیه
Responsibility has been lifted from my community in what they have been compelled.
This is evidence that free-ch0ice is a condition.
رفع القلم عن ثلاث؛ عن الصبى حتى يحتلم و عن المجنون حتى يفيق و عن النائم حتى يستيقظ
Or the Prince of the Faithful said: The pen has been lifted from three: the mad until he regains health.
Therefore, it is not necessary to open a new discussion on these generally applicable conditions. The same evidence which applies in ṣawm and ṣalāt and other obligations is sufficient here as well. But out of caution, because of the extreme gravity of the matter, because it deals with the lives of people, on this basis it is needed to tackle the applicability of conditions independently.
First: al-ʾaql
First: the Intellect. Beyond consensus (ijmāʾ) holding that the madman (majnūn) and the madwoman (majnūna), aḥādīth to this end exist.
aṣbaǧ b. nabāta has narrated saying: five people were brought to ʾumar b. al-khaṭṭāb on charge of zinā, so he ordered that ḥadd is applied on every one of them. The Prince of the Faithful – upon him peace – was present, so he said:
ʾumar! This is not their sentence.
So he sentenced the fifth of them with taʾzīr, so he said:
indeed he is a madman.
The ḥadīth is brief, but has come fully extended some other place.
Five people were brought before ʾumar b. al-khaṭṭāb charging them with zinā, so he condemned them to a hundred stripes each. But ʾalī b. abī ṭālib – upon him peace – was present. He said: it is not as you have ruled, but the first must be stoned because he was married (muḥṣin), the second must be whipped a hundred stripes, because he was unmarried (ghayr muḥṣin), the third must be whipped fifty stripes, because he was a slave (ʾabd) and his ḥadd is half the ḥadd of a freeman (ḥurr), the fourth must be smacked, because he is an infant and is not responsible, and the fifth is to be freed, because he is a madman.
But in the first ḥadīth, the ruling was for the madman to be given taʾzīr. So it means that that madman was not 100%, for it does not make sense to do taʾzīr to an 100% madman. So it is clear that he had some slight awareness, for which the Imām ordered his taʾzīr.
That which ʾalāʿ b. razīn has narrated from muḥammad b. muslim from either imām al-bāqir or imām al-ṣādiq – peace upon both – about a woman who had committed zinā while she was a madwoman. He said:
Indeed she does not possess herself. Free her.
There is a complicated ḥadīth where imām al-ṣādiq – upon him peace – says that if it is a madman, they apply ḥadd on him, and if it is a madwoman, they free her. Meaning, the Imām differentiates between the madman and the madwoman, between the retard male and the retard female, and he has said that if the insane is male, whip him, and if it is female, free her. Then they asked him: what is the difference between the female and the male? He responds: the man enjoys in zinā. So it becomes clear that he did so with freedom of choice. However, in such cases, the woman is compelled, and so therefore does not enjoy, and so she is freed. It should be said that this casuistry requires reflection, for how is it that the madman enjoys so it is concluded that they freely chose to do zinā, but the madwoman does not enjoy, so it is concluded that they were compelled and therefore must be freed? If the ḥadīth is to be properly interpreted, it must be said that the madman was [e.g.] 80% mad while the madwoman was 100% mad.
What abān b. taǧlab narrated: abū ʾabdullāh – upon him peace – said:
when the madman or male retard commit zinā, he is struck with ḥadd, and if he is married he is stoned.
I said: and what is the difference between the madman and the madwoman, the male retard and the female retard?
So he said: the woman is only come upon, and the man comes, and he only commits zinā when he intellects how pleasure obtains, and the woman is only compelled from him and he acts on her and she does not comprehend what he does to her.
If this ḥadīth is to be reasoned, it must be said that the man’s madness was little while the woman was 100% mad.
The import of these aḥāiṭh is that the zānī must certainly have intellect.
Second: al-bulūǧ
Second: Adulthood.
yazīd al-kunāsī – and kunāsa was an area in Kūfa and he lived there – narrated from abū jaʾfar – upon him peace – who said:
the girl when she comes of age, nine years, orphan-hood goes from her and she is married and ḥudūd is applied on her.
ḥumrān narrated that: I asked abū jaʾfar – upon him peace – saying to him: when is full ḥadd applicable on the boy?
He said:
when orphan-hood leaves him and he understands.
I said: so is there a limit by which this can be recognised?
So he said:
when he hits puberty [even at thirteen], or when he reaches fifteen years, or when he grows pubic hair before it, full ḥudūd applies to him.
aʾmash narrated from b. ẓibyān – [the ḥadīth is ḍaʾīf] – said: a madwoman was brought to ʾumar, did she in fact commit zinā?
So ʾalī b. abī ṭālib – upon him peace – said:
but know that the pen has been lifted from three: from the child until they come of age, and from the insane until they regain health, and from the sleeper until they awake.
So far, two conditions have been proven. In addition to the evidence of general applicability, the evidence of special applicability to zinā have been provided.
Third: al-ikhtiyār
Third: Free-choice
يشترط في ثبوت الحد كون الزاني مختاراً في عمله، لا مكرهاً
It is a condition in the subsistence of ḥadd that the zānī has free-choice (mukhtār) in his actions, not compelled (mukrih).
So free-choice is a condition. However, it is debatable. Adulthood is not debatable, because it has been established. Intellect is not debatable, because it is an established condition. But whether free-choice is a condition or not, it is debatable. The majority of scholars say that free-choice is a condition. Even the author of al-jawāhir, after reporting the words of muḥaqqiq al-ḥillī, says: free-choice is a condition, on the better interpretation. This shows a difference in opinion, and so the correct or better opinion is that it is a condition.
muḥaqqiq al-ḥillī‘s phrase in sharāyiʾ ul islām
قال المحقق: و يشترط في تعلق الحد، العلم بالتحريم ، و الاختيار
al-muḥaqqiq al-ḥillī says: and the conditions to realise ḥadd are knowledge of its unlawfulness (taḥrīm), and free-choice.
and in al-jawāhir, after the prefaced phrase, he says: on the better interpretation.
shaykh ḥurr al-ʾāmilī, author of wasāil ul shīʾa, has a chapter in which he writes:
« سقوط الحدّ عن المستكرهة علي الزنا و لو بأن تمكن من نفسها خوفا من الهلاك عند العطش و تصدّق إذا ادعت»
The ḥadd falls from the compelled woman even if she gives herself in for fear of death due to thirst, and she is believed when she so claims.
The author of wasāil ul shīʾa has a ḥadith: A woman was brought to the Caliph, and they said she committed zinā with a man. The woman said: I accept that I committed zinā, however I was on the verge of death from thirst, so I requested water from the shepherd. He said he will give me water if I submitted myself to his wish, and I was forced to submit myself to his wish, to save my life and not die of thirst. They accepted her word.
So in the ḥadīth of ṭalḥa b. zayd it has come: there is no ʾaqr al-mahr and no ḥadd on the compelled woman.
And in the ḥadīth of mūsā b. bukayr, he said I heard him as he said: there is no ḥadd on the compelled woman, when she says: but I was compelled.
Therefore, generally, there is no debate that free-choice is a condition. But it is debatable that the woman can say I was compelled, and it is conceivable in her, but it is not conceivable in the man? If they compel a man and it contravenes his inclinations, why!, his penis won’t erect for zinā. So it becomes clear that his heart was in it, otherwise he could not commit the act. Some have advanced this objection.
They have also said that it is conceivable in a woman because a woman does not need an erection. The woman is just a venue, a place. Her wanting and not wanting is the same and do not play a role.
But the man is the actor (fāʾil) and the actor’s limb must be capable of the act. If he is disinclined, he would not be capable. From the fact that he was capable, it is known that there was no compulsion, but from inclination and free-choice. This is the doubt they have advanced.
But this doubt, this objection, has a response. Its response is: there are two types of compulsion. In one case, one is compelled to commit to something one naturally dislikes, and so the sex organ is not readied. Like compelling one to commit zinā with an ugly, leprous woman.
But sometimes the view is very beautiful, it does not contradict one’s nature, but one’s religion and the torment of Hell withholds them, then compulsion (ikrāh) is possible. If he is compelled, ‘do this or we will kill you!’, he will then do so under compulsion.
Therefore, it is not true that should one be compelled, their ability to act is constrained, for compulsion has 2 types: sometimes it contradicts human nature, and sometimes it accords with human nature, i.e. he desires the sinful act, however fear of God stops him; if compulsion enters the scene, the fear exits, and human nature pursues its desire.
قَالَ الْمُحَقِّقُ : وَ يَسْقُطُ الْحَدِّ مَعَ الاكراه وَ هُوَ يَتَحَقَّقُ فِي طَرَفِ الْمَرْأَةِ قطعاً ، وَ فِي تَحَقُّقِهِ فِي طَرَفِ الرَّجُلِ تَرَدُّدُ ، وَ الْأَشْبَهُ إِمْكَانِهِ ، لَمَّا يُعْرَفُ مِنْ مِيلِ الطَّبْعِ المزجور بالشرع . وَ فِي الْجَوَاهِرِ عَنِ الْغُنْيَةِ : لجزم بِعَدَمِهِ – - لِأَنَّ الْإِكْرَاهِ يَمْنَعُ عَنْ انْتِشَارَ الْعُضْوِ وَ انبعاث الْقَوِيِّ ، لتوقفهما عَلِيِّ الْمِيلَ النَّفْسَانِيُّ الْمُنَافِيَ لإنصراف النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْفِعْلِ المتوقف عَلَيْهِ صَدَقَ الأكراه ، وَ إِلَيْهِ يَرْجِعُ مَا فِي كَشْفِ اللِّثَامُ مِنَ التَّعْلِيلِ بِعَدَمِ انْتِشَارَ الألة إِلَّا مَعَ الشَّهْوَةِ الْمُنَافِيَةُ لِلْخَوْفِ . يلاحظ عَلَيْهِ : أَنَّهُ خَلَطَ بَيْنَ الْإِكْرَاهِ عَلِيِّ الْعَمَلِ الَّذِي يَنْزَجِرُ عَنْهُ الْإِنْسَانُ حَسَبَ الطَّبْعِ ، وَ بَيْنَ الْإِكْرَاهِ بمعني الصارف مَعَ مِيلِ النَّفْسِ بِالذَّاتِ وَ الْمَانِعُ عَنِ الِانْتِشَارُ هُوَ الْأَوَّلِ – - دُونَ الثَّانِي . وَ بعبارة أَخِّرِي : لَوْ كانَ الْعَمَلُ مِمَّا لَا يُقَبِّلُهُ الطَّبْعِ فَهُوَ يَمْنَعُ عَنْ الإنتشار دونما يَمِيلُ إِلَيْهِ حَسَبَ الطَّبْعِ ، وَ لَكِنَّ يَصُدُّهُ عَنِ الْعَمَلِ الْخَوْفِ مِنَ الْحَدِّ ، أَوِ الْعَذَابِ الأخروي . نَعَمِ الْوَارِدِ فِي الرِّوَايَاتِ هُوَ الْمُسْتَكْرَهَةِ لِأَنَّ الْإِكْرَاهِ فِي مَوْرِدَ الزِّنَا غَالِباً يَقَعُ مِنْ جَانِبِ الرَّجُلِ لَا الْمَرْأَةِ .
In the aḥādīth, the word is not mukrah (male), not mustakraha (female), but this does not mean that a man could not be compelled. The man can be compelled, but in zinā the compulsion mostly comes from the man and subjects the woman, and it is rare that the woman’s might would compel the man.
So there is a difference between compulsion to an act to which one is naturally not inclined towards, and so the body does not function properly towards that act, and compulsion where the one is naturally inclined towards, and something like fear of God stands in the way, except that the compulsion removes that fear.
Fourth: al-ʾilm
Fourth: knowledge
The fourth condition in zinā is knowledge, both knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the predicate-ruling. The knowledge of the subject is to know that such-and-such act is zinā, for example that he does not mistake the wife with a non-wife. But he knowledge of the predicate-ruling is important, knowing that zinā is unlawful. One may say that this knowledge exists for all Muslims, since every Muslim knows that sexual intimacy with a woman who is neither maritally contracted nor possession of the right hand is unlawful.
For those who have an Islāmic past, this fact is well-established. But for new converts, it is not hard to believe their ignorance. Imagine where some ignorant convert commits zinā, do they apply ḥadd to him?
It is true that “ignorance of the law” is not a legal excuse, but for a new convert there is room for it. And so abū baṣīr says that a man had converted, then had drunk liquor, then had committed zinā. They said it does not matter, since he is new to Islām (jaḍīd ul-islām), and his case is special.
رُوِيَ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ : قُلْتُ لِأَبِي جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ : رَجُلًا دَعَوْنَاهُ إِلَيَّ جُمْلَةِ الْإِسْلَامِ يَعْنِي لَا اله إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَ أَنَّ محمداً رَسُولَ اللَّهِ – فَأَقَرَّ بِهِ ثُمَّ شَرِبَ الْخَمْرَ وَ زُنِيَ وَ أَكْلُ الرِّبَا ، وَ لَمْ يَتَبَيَّنْ لَهُ شَيْءُ مِنَ الْحَلَالِ وَ الْحَرَامِ ، أُقِيمَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ إِذَا جَهْلٍ ؟ قَالَ : « لَا ، إِلَّا أَنْ تَقُومَ عَلَيْهِ بَيِّنَةُ أَنَّهُ قَدْ أَقَرَّ بِتَحْرِيمِهَا » .
muḥammad b. muslim narrated, saying: I said to abū jaʾfar – upon him peace -: a man confessed to us with the sentence of Islām – i.e. shahādatayn – so afterwards he admits to wine-drinking and zinā and usury (ribā), and nothing of the lawful and unlawful was explained to him; will ḥadd be applied on him when he was ignorant?
He said:
no, unless evidence is brought against him that he was indeed admitting of its unlawfulness (taḥrīm).
As well as the above, in Kitāb al-Barāʾa (Book of Acquittance) it has come:
« أيّ رجل ركب أمراً بجهالة فلا شيء عليه»
any man who conducts am act in ignorance, so there is nothing against him.
And apparently there is no difference between the ignorant of the subject and ignorant of the predicate-ruling.
abū baṣīr narrates from abī ʾabdullāh, who said: I asked about a woman whom a man married, so he found out that she has a husband.
He said:
He gets lashed and she gets stoned, because he proceeded with knowledge and she proceeded with knowledge.
It is possible that inquiry and investigation (faḥṣ) is obligatory, and this man was obligated to investigate, but he had not. Therefore, both knowledge of subject and knowledge of predicate-ruling is required. He must know that this woman has a husband (knowledge of subject) and that God has prohibited it (knowledge of predicate-ruling).
al-khuī says: knowledge is a condition in zinā; why? Because if one analyses the concept of zinā, one finds that it contains the concept of aggression towards the rights of other, and therefore there is no need for separate reasons for it, because the very concept of zinā contains this knowledge that this woman belongs to someone else, and zinā with them is aggression towards their rights.
In other words, knowledge of unrightfulness (ʾadam il-istqāq) is embedded in the concept of zinā, as is the case with theft and usurpation, which hold the knowledge of unrightfulness. Therefore, it is not necessary to bring evidence from the aḥādīth to prove knowledge as a condition.
al-subḥānī does not think this opinion to be correct; why? because the words which stand for concepts refer to the real extension, not to the known extension, and so zinā is also just like other acts.
i.e. “water” has been coined for the essence of water, regardless of whether one knows it or not. One’s knowledge or ignorance does not enter the matter. Of course, unrightfulness is embedded in the concepts of theft and usurpation, but not in zinā, and so it was said that if sexual intimacy occurred in obscure circumstances, this is zinā, but not a sin. Comparing zinā with theft and usurpation is a false comparison. After all, zinā is to be sexually intimate with a woman who is unlawful to him, whether he knows it or not.
