Haram Halal and Ambivalent Matters

Tafsir by Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali

Jami’ al-‘Ulum wa’l-Hikam by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali Commentary on the Seventh Hadith of Imam Nawawi’s “Forty”

Abu ‘Abdullah an-Nu’man ibn Bashir said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, ‘The Halal is clear and the haram is clear and in between them there are ambivalent matters which many people do not know. Whoever guards himself against ambivalent matters has gone to the utmost limit in seeking to be clear in his din and his honour. Whoever falls into ambivalent matters will fall into the haram, like the shepherd who shepherds [his flock] around forbidden pasturage, he is certain to pasture [his flock] in it Surely, every king has his forbidden pasturage. Surely, Allah’s forbidden pasturage is the things He has forbidden. Surely, in the body there is a lump of flesh which when it is sound the whole body is sound and when it is corrupt the whole body is corrupt. Truly, it is the heart.’” Al-Bukhari (52) and Muslim (1599) narrated it.

This hadith is authentic and its authenticity is agreed upon [by Muslim and al-Bukhari] as transmitted by ash-Sha‘bi from an-Nu‘man ibn Bashir. In the wordings [of different versions] there are sometimes some additions and omissions, but the meaning is the same or close.

It has been narrated from the Prophet in hadith of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, Jabir, Ibn Mas‘ud, and Ibn ‘Abbas, but the hadith of an-Nu‘man is the most sound of all the hadith in this section.

His words “The Halal is clear and the Haram is clear and in between them are ambivalent matters which many people do not know, means that what is entirely permissible is totally clear without any ambiguity, and similarly what is entirely forbidden, but however between the two there are matters which are unclear for many people as to whether they are halal or Aaram, but as for those who are firmly established in knowledge they are not unclear for them and they know which of the two categories they are in.

As for what is entirely permissible, it is for example eating wholesome food of crops, fruits and [the meat of] livestock,* drinking wholesome drinks and dressing in that which is necessary such as cotton, linen, wool or hair-fibres, and marriage and taking slave-women, etc., when it has been earned by sound contractual means such as purchase, inheritance, gift or in the spoils of jihad.

That which is entirely forbidden is, for example, eating the meat of animals which have died by some other means than by halal slaughter, pork, drinking wine, marriage to those to whom marriage is forbidden, men wearing silk clothing, and, for example, earning by haram means such as through usury, gambling, and [consuming] the price of something which is not halal to sell [such as selling wine and then buying halal food to eat with the money], taking property forcefully by stealing it, expropriating it, or by deception, etc.

As for those things which are ambiguous, they are, for example, eating those things about which there is disagreement as to whether they are halal or haram, either from corporeal things such as horses, mules and donkeys, lizards, drinking those things about which there is disagreement as to whether they are forbidden such as the nabidh drinks of which large amounts make one intoxicated, dressing in those things about whose permissibility there is disagreement such as the skins of wild animals, and the like; or from earnings about which there is disagreement such as al-inah and at-tawarruq, and it was with such meanings that Ahmad, Ishaq and other imams explained the term ‘ambiguities’.

The upshot is that Allah, exalted is He, sent down the Book upon His Prophet and explained what the ummah needs to know about that which is permitted and that which is forbidden within it, as He says, exalted is He:

“We have sent down the Book to you making all things clear.” Mujahid and others said [explaining the ayah], “…everything they are commanded and forbidden.” He, exalted is He, says at the end of Surat an-Nisa’ [ayah 176], which explains a great many of the judgements on properties and sexual relations:

“Allah makes things clear to you so you will not go astray. Allah has knowledge of all things.” And He say’s, exalted is He:

“What is the matter with you that you do not eat that over which the name of Allah has been mentioned, when He has made clear to you what He has made haram for you except when you are forced to eat it?” And He says,

Exalted is He:

‘Allah would never misguide a people after guiding them until He had made dear to them what they should avoid.”6 He entrusted the explanation of that of the revelation which is difficult to the Messenger, as He says,

Exalted is He:

‘And We have sent down the Reminder to you so that you can make clear to mankind what has been sent down to them.” The Messenger of Allah Was not taken in death until the din was completed for him and his ummah, and so there was revealed to him on ‘ Arafah shortly before his death:

“Today I have perfected your din for you and completed My blessing upon you and I am pleased with Islam as a din for you.”

He said, “I have left you on pure white whose night is like its day; no-one deviates from it but one who is to perish.”

Abu Dhan said, The Messenger of Allah Ss died and there was no bird moving its wings in the sky but that he had taught us some knowledge about it.

When people doubted his death « his paternal uncle al- Abbas said, “By Allah The Messenger of Allah did not die until he had left the way as a clear open road, and he permitted what is permitted and forbade what is forbidden, he married and divorced, made war and concluded treaties. No shepherd of sheep and goats who took them over the mountain tops beating down the leafy branches of tall thorny trees for them and plastering their watering trough with clay with his own hand was more exhausted and wearied by hard work than was the Messenger of Allah among you.”

In conclusion, Allah and His Messenger did not leave anything permitted or forbidden without clearly explaining it, but some of it is more obvious and evident than others. No doubt remains about that whose clarity is plainly apparent and well known, and which is known necessarily to be a part of the din, and no-one in any land in which Islam is dominant has any excuse to be ignorant of it. The things which are not so plainly clear, some of them are well known to those who know the Shariah in particular, and the people of knowledge are unanimous as to its permissibility or prohibition, but yet they might be obscure to some of those who are not of them [the people of knowledge]. There are other things which are even not so well known to those who know the Shariah, and they disagree as to whether they are permissible or not. That is for various reasons:

It may be that the text relating to it is not well known and that only a few people transmitted it, so that not all people of knowledge came to know of it. It may be that two texts are transmitted concerning it, one of which shows that it is permissible and the other that it is prohibited, and that one text reaches one party and not the other and so [each party] holds on firmly to that which has reached them. It may also be that both texts together reach people whom the history of the texts has not reached, and so they hesitate [between the judgement that it is permissible or that it is prohibited] because of their lack of knowledge of which of them abrogates and which is abrogated.

It may be that there is no clear text, and the judgement is derived from general rules, or from an understanding or an analogical deduction, and about those things the understandings of people of knowledge differ greatly.

There are some things respecting which there is a command or a prohibition, but people of knowledge differ as to whether the command implies that it is obligatory or a recommendation, or as to whether the prohibition implies that it is forbidden or a matter which those who are scrupulous should avoid. There are many more reasons for disagreement than we have mentioned.

Along with all of that, there has to be a man of knowledge in the ummah whose position coincides with the truth, so that he is the one who has knowledge of this judgement when others find the matter ambiguous and thus are not knowledgeable about it That is because this ummah will not agree on error, and its false people will not overcome its true people so that the truth will never be totally abandoned and not acted upon in all the lands and in all epochs. For this reason the Messenger of Allah said about ambiguities, “Many people do not know them,” showing that there are people who do know them, but that they are ambiguous to those who do not know them although they are not in themselves ambiguous, and this is the reason for the ambiguity of some matters to many people of knowledge.

Ambiguity can occur in respect to what is permitted and what is forbidden among the people of knowledge and others in another way, which is that the cause of the permissibility of some things is known, which is certain ownership. The cause of some things being forbidden is known, which is that the ownership of someone else is firmly established. The permissibility of the first does not cease unless one knows for sure that ownership has passed from one, O Allah! except in the case of sexual relations according to those who consider divorce to take effect when there is some doubt about it, such as Malik, or its occurrence is more probable in one’s opinion, such as is the view of Ishaq ibn Rahwayh. Second, its prohibition is only removed by sure knowledge of the transfer of ownership in it.

As for that of which someone does not know its ownership’s origin, such as something which someone finds in his own house of which he does not know if it is his or someone else’s, then this is ambiguous, but it is not forbidden for him to consume it, since it is evident that whatever is in his house is his property, since it is actually in his possession, but it would be more scrupulous to avoid it He said “Sometimes I go to my family and find a date which has fallen on my mattress and lift it to eat it, and then I fear that it might be from the zakah and so cast it away.” They narrated it in the two books.

If something is [also] there [at one’s home with one’s own possessions] that is from the forbidden category, and one is in doubt whether it is or not from it [the forbidden category], then the ambiguity is even stronger. In the hadith of ‘Amr ibn Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather there is that, The Prophet suffered from insomnia one night. One of his wives said to him, ‘Messenger of Allah, you were sleepless last night,’ and he said, ‘I found a date underneath me and ate it, but we had some dates from the zakah with us and I was afraid that it might have been one of them.’”

There are also those things which are typically halal such as the purity of water, clothing and land [i.e. these are assumed to be pure and permitted for use] if there is no certainty of the departure of its original condition, and so it is permitted to use it Those things which are initially forbidden such as sexual relations and the meat of animals, only become permissible by certainty of their permissibility by AaZd/slaughter [of the meat] and contract [marriage, or ownership in the case of slave women]. If one has doubts about anything of that because of the appearance of some other cause, then one must return to the initial situation and base oneself on it, thus in that whose initial situation is that it is forbidden one considers it forbidden. For this reason, the Prophet forbade the eating of game in which the hunter finds I traces of someone else’s arrow, or the marks of someone else’s dog [so that it is possible the animal died because of an old wound rather than because of the hunter’s arrow or dog], or finds that it has fallen into water [and thus possibly drowned] , because it is not known whether it died from the cause which makes it permissible [the hunters arrow or dog which he releases pronouncing Allah’s name] or from some other cause.

In those matters whose initial situation is that they are permitted, one returns to the fact that they are permissible, so that one does not consider water, clothing or land impure just because of a suspicion of impurity. It is similar in the case of the body when one has purified it but has a subsequent doubt that the state of purity has been disrupted by one of those matters that do so [such as breaking wind, etc.] according to the majority of the people of knowledge and as opposed to Malik if one has not already entered into the prayer. It is also a sound tradition from the Prophet “That a man complained to him that he imagined that he found something [which disrupted

his state of purity] during the prayer, and he said, ‘Do not break off [from the prayer] unless you hear a sound or experience a smell [from the breaking of wind].” In some of the narrations it refers to being “in the mosque” rather than in the prayer.

This is general in the case of prayer and other things. If such a strong cause [of suspicion] is found, that the impurity of something that is originally pure becomes most probable in one’s opinion for example, clothing that a kafir had worn who had not taken any care to keep it clean, then this is a reason for doubt. Some of the people of knowledge make concessions for it based on extenuating circumstances, taking their position from the original state [of purity]. Some of them disapprove of it out of scrupulousness. Some of them consider it to be forbidden if there is a strong suspicion of impurity, for example, if the kafir is one of those whose slaughtered meat is not permitted [to Muslims], or [the clothing], such as trousers and shirt, is in immediate contact with his private parts. These issues and others like them are based on the principle of the original situation and the ostensible circumstance, because the original situation is [that clothing is considered in a state of] purity, but the ostensible circumstance is [that the clothing has an extremely strong probability of] impurity. The proofs in this matter are contradictory.

Those who take the position that it is pure, seek to prove it by the fact that Allah, exalted is He, permits the food of the People of the Book and they prepare that with their own hands in their cooking vessels, and that the Prophet  accepted the invitation of a Jew, and he and his companions used to wear and use that which came to them of those items of clothing which the kafirun had woven with their own hands, or vessels [which they had hand- made]. During battles they would divide up those bags and items of clothing which fell to their lot and make use of them. It is established by an authentic hadith that they used water from the provision container belonging to an idolatrous woman.

Those who take the position that such things are unclean seek to derive a proof from the fact that it is established by an authentic tradition from the Prophet that he was asked about a vessel of the People of the Book who eat pork and drink wine and he said, “If you cannot find something else, then wash it with water and eat from it.”

Imam Ahmad explained ambiguity as a position in between that which is permissible and that which is forbidden, i.e. those things which are permitted outright and forbidden outright He said, “Whoever guards himself against ambivalent matters has gone to the utmost limit in seeking to be clear in his din and his honour.” Sometimes he explained it [ambiguity] as the mixing of things which are permissible with those which are forbidden.

Transacting with someone in whose wealth there is both permitted and forbidden [property] mixed together is another branch of this. If most of his property is forbidden, then Ahmad said, “One ought to avoid it unless it is something insignificant or something unknown.” Our people differ in two ways as to whether it is disapproved or forbidden:

If most of his property is halal it is permitted to transact with him and to eat from his wealth. Al-Harith narrated of ‘All that he said concerning the stipend granted by the ruler, “There is no harm in it That which he gives you of the halal is more than that which he gives you of the haram.” The Prophet and his Companions, used to transact with those who associate partners with Allah and with the People of the Book, knowing full well that they do not avoid everything which is forbidden. If the matter is not clear then it is an ambiguity and scrupulousness is to give it up. Sufyan said, “That doesn’t please me, and prefer that one give it up.”

Az-Zuhriand Makhul both said, “It is no harm to eat from it as long as it is not known specifically that it is forbidden.” If one doesn’t specifically know that in the other’s wealth there is something forbidden, but that one does know of some ambiguity, then there is no harm in eating from it. Ahmad stated that in the transmission from him of Hanbal.

Ishaq ibn Rahwayh took the position narrated of Ibn Masud, Salman and others, that it is permitted as a concession, and that which is narrated of al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin on the permissibility of taking from wealth that is paid for from usury and gambling, and he narrated it as the position of Ibn Mansur.

Imam Ahmad said about wealth whose halal element is ambiguously indistinguishable from its haram, “If there is a great deal of wealth he must take out of it the amount of that which is haram and transact with the remainder, but if the wealth is little he should avoid all of it” That is because if some of the little quantity of wealth is consumed it is unlikely to be safe from the haram, as opposed to the case of a lot of wealth. Of our people there are those who regard this judgement as being in the realm of scrupulousness rather than being a prohibition and permit transacting with either the large or small quantity after having removed an amount equivalent to that which is haram from it, and that is also the position of the Hanafi’s and others, and some scrupulous people based themselves on that, such as Bishr al-Hafi.

Some people of the right-acting first generations granted concessions for one to eat from the property of someone some of whose property is known to be haram as long as it is known that what one consumes is not haram, as we saw previously of Makhul and az-Zuhri, and something similar is narrated of al-Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad. Many traditions to that effect are narrated of the right acting first generations. There is an authentic narration from Ibn Mas’ud that he was asked about someone whose neighbour openly consumed usury and felt no harm in taking unwholesome property and who invited him to eat with him. He said, “Accept his invitation because the gratification is yours and the wrong action is his.” In another narration [the questioner] said, “I don’t know if he has anything that is not corrupt or haram.” So he said, “Accept his invitation.” Imam Ahmad authenticated this tradition from Ibn Mas’ud, but he contradicts it with the statement that is narrated of him that he said, “Wrong action is that which makes hearts uneasy.”

Something similar to the first statement of Ibn Mas’ud above has been narrated of Salman, Sa’id ibn jubayr, al-Hasan al-Basri, Muwarriq al-‘Ijli, Ibrahim an-Nakha’i, Ibn Sirin and others, and the traditions relating to that are in the Kitab al-adabby Humayd ibn Zanjawayh, and some are in the book al-Jami by al-Khallal and in the Musannaf of ‘Abd ar-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shaybah and others.

When it is known that the source of the thing is haram and that it was acquired in some forbidden manner, then it is forbidden to consume it Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and others narrate that there is unanimity on that. It is narrated that Ibn Sirin said about a man who gets paid from usury, “There is no harm in it,” and about a man who gets paid from gambling, “There is no harm in it.” Al-Khallal narrated it with a sound chain of transmission. However the contrary is narrated of al-Hasan and that he said, “These earnings are corrupt so only take from it that which resembles the [actions of someone] in pressing need [for whom the haram becomes permissible as long as he fears he might die or suffer harm if he did not take it].” That which is narrated of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq contradicts that narrated of Ibn Mas’ud and Salman, because he ate some food and then upon being told that it was haram [i.e. from haram earnings], he made himself vomit. ”

Sometimes, ambiguity arises in judgement because of the fact that it is uncertain which principles the derivative judgement comes under. For example, a man’s declaring his wife to be haram to him. In this case it is uncertain as to whether this is a declaration of zihar divorce which is only revoked by the greater expiation [of freeing a slave, or two consecutive months’ fasting, or feeding sixty poor people], or a single declaration of divorce with the expiration of whose ‘iddah period the wife becomes permissible to him again with a new marriage contract [if she accepts his marriage proposal], or a triple divorce with which the wife cannot be permissible to him again without marrying another husband and having intercourse with him, or even whether it is like a man’s declaring something which Allah permits him of food and drink to be haram for himself but which does not in reality make them haram, and which requires a lesser expiation, or may not even require anything at all [in the way of expiation] depending on the difference of opinion in that. It is from here that many differences of opinion arose on this question in the time of the Companions and after them.

In any case, the ambiguous matters which are not clear to many people as to whether they are halal or haram, as the Prophet told, are clear to some people as to whether they are halal or haram because of the extra knowledge that they have about that The words of the Prophet show that there are those who know these ambiguities, but that many do not. There are two types of people who do not know them:

First, there are those who hesitate about them because they appear ambiguous to them.

Second, there are those who believe them to be other than they are.

The wording shows that people other than these ones know them, meaning that they know whether they are in essence halal or haram. This is one of the most obvious proofs that only one person [when there are many different views] is correct with Allah concerning the matters which are ambiguous and on which there is disagreement as to whether they are halal or haram. Anyone other than him is not knowledgeable about them, meaning that in essence they do not hit upon the judgement of Allah on these matters, even if (hey believe some principle about them which they derive from an ambiguity which they believe is a proof, and even though they will be rewarded for exerting their intellects and forgiven for their mistake because they did not do it deliberately.

In his words, “Whoever guards himself against ambivalent matters has gone to the utmost limit in seeking to be clear in his din and his honour.

Whoever falls into ambivalent matters will fall into the haram,” he categorised people in two groups with respect to ambiguous matters, but this is only with respect to those for whom they are ambivalent, i.e. the one who doesn’t have knowledge of them. As for whoever knows about them and follows that which his knowledge shows him about them, this is a third group whom he did not I mention because of obviousness of the judgement about them, since this group are the best of the three because they know the judgement of Allah about these ambiguous matters and follow their knowledge on that. As for those who do not know the judgement of Allah on them they are in two groups:

First, those who guard against these ambiguities because of their dubious nature, and these have gone to the utmost limit in seeking to be clear in their din and their honour.

The meaning of ‘have gone to the utmost limit in seeking to be clear’ is that they seek to be free in their din and their honour from any shortcoming and dishonour. Honour (ird) is the object of praise or blame in the human being. If something beautiful is mentioned about one that is praise, and if something ugly then that is blame.

Sometimes that can be in the same person, sometimes in his forebears, or his family. Whoever guards himself against ambiguous matters and avoids them has made his honour impregnable against the blame and dishonour which come to someone who does not avoid them. This shows that whoever involves himself in ambiguous matters exposes himself to blame and attack, as one of the right-acting first generations said, “Whoever exposes himself to suspicion should not blame whoever has a bad opinion of him.”

In a narration of at-Tirmidhi of this hadith there is, “So whoever gives it [the doubtful matter] up, in order to be utterly clear in his din and his honour, is safe,” meaning that whoever gives it up with this intention, i.e. to be free from any shortcoming in his din and his honour, and not for any other incorrect purpose such as showing-off, etc. There is a proof in it that seeking to be free in one’s honour is as praiseworthy as seeking to be clear in one’s din, and so it is narrated that, “Everything with which a man protects his honour is an act of sadaqah.

In a narration in the two Sahih books of this hadith there is, “Whoever gives up what wrongdoing is unclear to him, will do more to give up what is clearly [wrong],” meaning that someone who gives up wrong action when it is ambiguous to him and he fails to realise its true nature [whether it is halal or haram], is more likely to give it up when it becomes clear to him that it is wrong action. This is in the case where his giving it up is in order to take every precaution against wrong action. As for those who intend to cultivate the impression [of being scrupulous] in front of people, they only give up things because they will be praised by people for giving them up.

The second group are those who become involved in ambiguities even though they are ambiguous to them. As for those who embark on something which people think is ambiguous because they themselves know that it is actually permissible, then there is nothing against them with Allah for that. However, if one fears the vilification of people in that case, giving it up is a way of going to the limit in guarding one’s honour, which is good. This is as the Prophet said to someone who saw him standing with Safiyyah, “She is Safiyyah bint Huyay.” Anas went out to the Jumu’ah but he saw that people had prayed and were coming away, so he was ashamed and went aside into a place where people could not see him, and said, “Whoever is not shy before people will not be shy before Allah.” At-Tabarani narrated it as a marfu hadith but that is not sound.

If someone approaches that [doubtful action] because he believes that it is permissible, either because of an allowable ijtihad or an allowable taqlid, and he is mistaken in his belief, then the judgement on him is the same as the previous judgement However, if his exertion of his intellect to reach a new judgement is weak or his following someone on whom he thinks it acceptable to model himself is not allowable, but he was only convinced purely by the following of his whim, then the judgement on him is the same as the judgement on someone who embarks on it along with his being in doubt about it. The Prophet told us about whoever does undertake something along with his being in doubt about whether it is halal or haram, that he will fall in to that which is haram. This is explained in two ways:

First, that his embarking on the matter which is ambiguous along with his conviction that it is ambiguous is a means which will lead him, gradually and through self-indulgence, to embark upon that which is forbidden and which he is convinced is haram. In a version of this hadith outside of the two Sahih books there is, “and whoever dares to do that which he suspects is a wrong action, is more likely to fall into that which is clearly [wrong action]… ”.’ In another narration there is, “whoever meddles with doubt is more likely to dare [to go further,’i.e. he will soon advance to something which is entirely haram. “Daring” (jusur) is to have the audacity which fears nothing and is not fearfully vigilant for anyone. Some narrate the word as “yajshuru with the letter shin [instead of sin],i.e. meaning to pasture, whose noun of action, jashr, is “pasturage”, as in pasturing animals. In the Marasil of Abu’l-Mutawakkil an-Naji there is that the Prophet said, “Whoever pastures on the edges of the haram is more likely to become mixed up with it Whoever thinks little of minor wrong actions is more likely to become mixed up with major wrong actions. ”

Second, that whoever advances to do that which is doubtful to him not knowing whether it is halal or haram, is not safe from it actually being haram, and so he may become involved in the haram without knowing that it is so. It has been narrated in a hadith of Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet said, “The halal is clear and the haram is clear and between the two of them there are ambiguities. Whoever guards against them, then it will be purer for his din and bis honour. Whoever falls into ambiguities is more likely to fall into the haram, just as the one who grazes [his flocks] around protected pasturage is likely to venture into the protected pasturage without realising.” At Tabarani and others narrated it.

The people of knowledge differ as to whether one should obey one’s parents with respect to doubtful matters or not. It has been narrated from Bishr ibn al-Harith that he said, ‘There is no obedience [owing] to them for doubtful matters.” Muhammad ibn Muqatil al-Tbarani said, “One should obey them.”

Ahmad hesitated over this matter and he said, “One should treat them gently,”

and he refused to give an answer about it.

Ahmad said, “A man should not sell something doubtful, nor should he buy clothing for adornment from that which is doubtful,” but he hesitated over the limit with respect to that which is eaten or worn. He said about a date which a bird drops that one should not eat it, take it nor meddle with it.

Ath-Thawri said about someone who found fulus and dirhams in his house, “I prefer that he refrain from [using] them,” meaning when he does not know where they come from. Some people of the right-acting first generations would not eat anything unless they knew from where it came, and they would ask about it until they discovered its source. There is a hadith which has been attributed [to the Prophet] on that, but there is a weakness in the chain of transmission.

His words, “…like the shepherd who shepherds [his flock] around forbidden pasturage, he is almost certain to pasture [his flock] in it. Certainly, every king has his forbidden pasturage. Certainly, Allah’s forbidden pasturage is the things He has forbidden. ” This is a similitude which the Prophet struck for the one who becomes involved in ambiguities, that he is almost certain to become involved in things which are plainly forbidden. In some narrations there is that the Prophet said, “I will strike a similitude for that… ” and then he mentioned the above. The Prophet It made the similitude of things that are forbidden as the protected pasturage which kings protect and which they prevent others from approaching. The Prophet It made twelve miles around his Madinah a protected and forbidden pasturage in which trees are not allowed to be cut, nor creatures hunted. The protected pasturages of ‘Umar and ‘Uthman were places in which fresh herbage grew for the camels of the zakah.

Allah protects these things which are forbidden and prevents His slaves from drawing near them, and He calls them “His limits”. He says: “These are Allah’s limits, so do not go near them. In this way does Allah make His Signs clear to people so that hopefully they will have taqwa. In this there is a clarification that He has drawn the limits of what He permits them and what He forbids for them, so that they must not approach that

which is forbidden nor go beyond that which is halal. Similarly, He says in another ayah:

These are Allah’s limits so do not overstep them. Those who overstep Allah s limits are wrongdoers. ” He regards whoever pastures around the protected pasturage or near to it, as predisposed to go into the pasturage and graze in it Similarly, whoever oversteps that which is permitted and falls into ambiguities, comes as close as it is possible to that which is forbidden, and so how likely he is to become mixed up with the things which are clearly forbidden and fall into them. This is an indication that one ought to put oneself as faraway as possible from things which are forbidden, and that one ought to put a barrier between oneself and them.

At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah narrated from a hadith of ‘Abdullah ibn Yazid that the Prophet It said, The slave [of Allah] will not attain being one of the people of taqwa until he gives up that in which there is no harm as a precaution against that in which there is harm.”

Abu’d-Darda’ said, The perfection of taqwa is that the slave should have so much taqwa of Allah that he fears Him over the weight of a tiny ant, and so much that he gives up that which he thinks is permissible out of fear that it might be forbidden, in order to put a veil between him and that which is forbidden.”

Al-Hasan said, Taqwa continues in the people of taqwa so long as they give up much of that which is permissible out of fear of that which is forbidden.”

Ath-Thawri said, They were only called the people of taqwa because they had taqwa for that for which there is no [need for] taqwa.” It has been narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said, “I prefer to put between me and that which is forbidden a veil of that which is permitted and not pierce it. ”

Maymun ibn Mihran said, That which is permitted is not safe for a man until he puts between him and that which is forbidden a barrier of that which it permitted.”

Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said, “A slave [of Allah] will not strike on the reality of iman until he puts a barrier of that which is halal between himself and that which is forbidden, and until he gives up wrong action and whatever resembles it”

Those who take the position of sadd adh-dhard’i [blocking means] which lead to forbidden things and forbidding the means which lead to them, do so by means of this hadith. Another proof of that also from the principles of the Shariah is forbidding a little of that of which a lot intoxicates, the prohibition of being alone with a woman who is a non-relative and to whom one is not married, and the prohibition of prayer after the morning and afternoon prayers in order to prevent prayer at the time of sunrise and sunset, the prevention of the fasting person from embracing if that will cause his sexual appetite to stir, and the prohibition by many people of knowledge of a man’s embracing a woman in her menstrual period between her navel and her knees unless there is something intervening [between him and her body], just as the Prophet told his wife when she was in her menstrual period to wear an izar and he would embrace her above the war.

Another example which is like the example the Prophet struck “Whoever neglects his beast grazing near to somebody else’s crops is responsible for the crops that it ruins, even if that occurs during the day,” and this is correct, because he is neglectful by setting it free in that condition. Similarly [another example], the difference of opinion in the case where someone unleashes his hunting dog near to the haram [of Makkah or Madinah], and it then enters the haram and hunts within it. There are two different narrations from Ahmad about his responsibility, and it has been said that he must be responsible for it in every case.

In his words, “Surely, in the body there is a lump of flesh which when it is sound the whole body is sound and when it is corrupt the whole body is corrupt. Truly, it is the heart,” there is an indication that the rightness of the slave’s limbs’ movements, his avoidance of the things which are forbidden and his guarding against the things which are ambiguous are according to the measure of the soundness of his heart. If his heart is sound and there is nothing in it but love of Allah and love of what Allah loves, and fear of Allah and fear of falling into that which He dislikes, then all of the actions of the limbs will be right, and there will arise from that his avoidance of all forbidden things, and his guarding himself against ambiguities in case he should fall into things which are forbidden. If the heart is corrupt and it is overcome by following whims and his seeking what he loves even if Allah dislikes it, then all of the limbs’ movements will be corrupt, and will give rise to every act of disobedience and [engagement in every] ambiguous matter according to the extent of his following the heart’s whim.

For this reason it is said that the heart is the king of the limbs and organs and the other limbs and organs are its troops. Along with this, they are troops which are obedient to it and motivated by obedience to it and to executing its commands, not opposing it in any of that. If the king is right, then these troops will be right-acting, but if he is corrupt, his troops will be corrupt. Nothing is of any use to Allah but a sound heart, as He says, exalted is He:

“The Day when neither wealth nor sons will be of any use — except to those who come to Allah with sound and flawless hearts.”

The Prophet used to say in his supplication:

“O Allah, I ask You for a sound heart.” The sound heart is one which is safe from all defects and disapproved things, and it is the heart in which there is nothing but love of Allah and of that which Allah loves, and fear of Him and of that which puts one far from Him.

In the Musnad of Imam Ahmad there is from Anas that the Prophet said, The iman of a slave will not be straight until his heart is straight. ” What is meant by the straightness of his iman, is the straightness of the limbs’ actions, because the limbs’ actions are only straight by the heart’s straightness. The meaning of the heart’s straightness is that it should be full of love of Allah, exalted is He, and love of obeying Him and hatred of disobeying Him.

Al-Hasan said to a man, “Tend your heart, for what Allah needs from the slaves is soundness of their hearts.” Meaning that what He wants and seeks from them is the soundness of their hearts, and there is no soundness in hearts until the gnosis of Allah, His might, His love, fear of Him, awe of Him, hope of Him, and reliance on Him are established in them and they are full of that This is the reality of tawhid, and it is the meaning of the saying, “There is no god but Allah.” There is no soundness in hearts until the god whom they worship, recognise, love and fear is Allah alone without any partner. If there had been a god other than Allah who was worshipped in the heavens and the earth, the heavens and the earth would have become ruined by that, as He says, exalted is He:

If there had been any gods besides Allah in heaven or earth, they would both be ruined.”

So by that it is known that there is no rightness and order in either the upper or lower world until the movements of their inhabitants are all for Allah. The movements of the body follow the movements of the heart and its will, so that if its movement and its will are for Allah alone then it will be sound, and the movements of the whole body will be sound and if the movement of the heart and its will are for other than Allah it will be ruined, and the movement of the body will be ruined according to the extent of the ruin of the heart’s movement

Al-layth narrated from Mujahid concerning His words:

‘…that you do not associate anything with Him,” “He is saying, ‘Do not love anyone other than Me.’ ”

In the Sahih of al-Hakim there is from ‘A’ishah that the Prophet said, “The act of associating partners with Allah is more hidden than the creeping of ants on a stone on a dark night. The least of it is that you love some act of tyranny or hate some act of justice; and is the din anything but love and hate? Allah, exalted is He, says:

‘Say, “If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you.” This shows that the love of what Allah detests and the hatred of what He loves means that one is following one’s whims, and doing that continuously and habitually is a part of the lesser association of partners with Allah, which is shown by His words, “Say, ‘If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you.’” Allah makes following His Messenger the sign of the truthfulness of loving Him, which shows that love is incomplete without obedience and compliance.

Al-Hasan, said, “The Companions of the Messenger of Allah said, ‘Messenger of Allah, we love our Lord greatly,’ and so Allah loved to make a sign for His love. So Allah revealed this ayah, ‘Say, “If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you.”’” From this al-Hasan said, “Know that you will never love Allah until you love obedience to Him.”

Dhu’n-Nun al-Misri was asked, “When do I love my Lord?” He said, “When what He hates is more bitter to you than the aloe. ” Bishr ibn as-Sirri said, Tt is not one of the signs of love that you should love what your Beloved hates.” Abu Yaqub an-Nahrajuri said, “Everyone who claims to love Allah & and does not comply with Allah’s command, then his claim is false. ” Ruwaym said, “Love is compliance in every state. ” Yahya ibn Mu’adh said, “He who claims to love Allah and does not guard His limits is not truthful.” One of the right-acting first generations said, “I read in one of the ancient books, ‘Whoever loves Allah, nothing will have greater weight with him than His good pleasure. Whoever loves the world, nothing will have greater weight with him than his self s whims. ”

In the Sunan it is narrated that the Prophet said, “Whoever gives for the sake of Allah and withholds for the sake of Allah, and loves for the sake of Allah and hates for the sake of Allah, has perfected man. ” The meaning of this is that if every movement of the heart and limbs is for the sake of Allah, then the slave’s Iman has by that become perfect inwardly and outwardly. It follows from the rightness of the movements of the heart that the movements of the limbs will be right. If the heart is right and there is nothing in it but the will of Allah and willing what He wills, then the limbs will only proceed with that which Allah wills, and will hasten to that in which lies His good pleasure and will withhold themselves from what He dislikes and from that which one fears that He may dislike even though one is not certain of it.

Al-Hasan, said, “I do not look with my sight, nor talk with my tongue, nor grasp with my hand, nor get up on my feet until I consider whether it is for the sake of an act of obedience or of disobedience. If it is obedience, I continue. If it is disobedience, then I delay.” Muhammad ibn al-Fadl al-Balkhl said, I have not taken a step for forty years for the sake of any other than Allah.” Someone said to Dawud at-Ta’i, “If only you would move from the shade into the sun.” He said, This is a step about which I do not know how it will be recorded.”

When these people’s hearts were right and the desire of any other than Allah did not remain in them, then their limbs became right and they only moved for the sake of Allah Jfe and for the sake of that in which His good pleasure lies, and Allah knows best.