What are the limits of maintaining family ties?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Is there a specific criterion for the relatives (rahim) whom a Muslim is commanded to maintain ties with, or what is that criterion?
The Shaykh : It is like that which moves. I do not think the issue can be defined precisely in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, but it can be defined practically. For example, if we imagine, following the method of the Hanafi scholars, that a man dies and has fifty grandfathers. A man with fifty grandfathers cannot maintain ties with all of them; he must start with the closest, then the next closest. He may have two grandfathers, which can happen in some cases, so he has many relatives. Therefore, the closest are more deserving of kindness. Otherwise, maintaining family ties includes, as I recently understood from the words of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari, the relatives of the father and the mother. No limit is set for this such that a person can intellectually know its boundaries.
The questioner : I mean, if it were said, for example, regarding the mahram women?
The Shaykh : No problem, but it was not said. Please proceed.
The questioner : Regarding those for whom it is not established...
The Shaykh : No, what?
The questioner : Those for whom the attribute of the Leg (al-Saq) is not established for Allah, Mighty and Majestic, would this be contrary to the principles?
The Shaykh : No, it is not contrary, because this is based on independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), because he interpreted it. Yes.
The questioner : He did not deny it.
The Shaykh : He interpreted the Leg as intensity and the like, and thus understood the verse to not be an attribute of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Yes.
The questioner : Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) did not deny the Leg. Rather, he read the saying of Allah the Exalted:[An-Najm 53:3], and stated that it is not from the verses of attributes. Rather, those who affirmed it did not understand it from the verse, but understood it from the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri in Sahih al-Bukhari.
The Shaykh : Al-Bukhari, yes.
The questioner : So Shaykh al-Islam did not deny any of the attributes of Allah, but rather said that this verse is not from the verses of attributes. There is a great difference between this matter and that matter, and Allah knows best. And Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), the student of Shaykh al-Islam, responded to them with an explanatory response in al-Sawa'iq al-Mursalah.
The Shaykh : Okay, may Allah reward you with good.
The questioner : And you as well.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : What is the difference between the word "kafir" (disbeliever) and "kafara" (disbelieved)?
The Shaykh : "Kafir" carries the meaning of a permanent attribute, whereas "kafara" does not. Not everyone who disbelieves becomes a disbeliever. For example, not everyone who does a just act once becomes a just person, and not everyone who oppresses once becomes an oppressor. Otherwise, the attributes would be mixed among people. Al-Hajjaj, the oppressive destroyer, must have done a just act once or many times. Do we say he is just? And there must be another person, Zayd, who is just but oppressed in a case. What does he become? He takes the name "oppressor." So this active participle gives a specific attribute to the one who performed this action more than the word "kafara." Therefore, it is not permissible for us to apply the word "kafir" to a person to whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the word "kafara," because the word "kafara" is less than the word "kafir" in meaning. Everyone who is called a "kafir" has disbelieved, but the reverse is not true: not everyone who disbelieved is a "kafir."
The Shaykh : It is like that which moves. I do not think the issue can be defined precisely in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, but it can be defined practically. For example, if we imagine, following the method of the Hanafi scholars, that a man dies and has fifty grandfathers. A man with fifty grandfathers cannot maintain ties with all of them; he must start with the closest, then the next closest. He may have two grandfathers, which can happen in some cases, so he has many relatives. Therefore, the closest are more deserving of kindness. Otherwise, maintaining family ties includes, as I recently understood from the words of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari, the relatives of the father and the mother. No limit is set for this such that a person can intellectually know its boundaries.
The questioner : I mean, if it were said, for example, regarding the mahram women?
The Shaykh : No problem, but it was not said. Please proceed.
The questioner : Regarding those for whom it is not established...
The Shaykh : No, what?
The questioner : Those for whom the attribute of the Leg (al-Saq) is not established for Allah, Mighty and Majestic, would this be contrary to the principles?
The Shaykh : No, it is not contrary, because this is based on independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), because he interpreted it. Yes.
The questioner : He did not deny it.
The Shaykh : He interpreted the Leg as intensity and the like, and thus understood the verse to not be an attribute of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Yes.
The questioner : Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) did not deny the Leg. Rather, he read the saying of Allah the Exalted:
Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.
وما ينطق عن الهوىThe Shaykh : Al-Bukhari, yes.
The questioner : So Shaykh al-Islam did not deny any of the attributes of Allah, but rather said that this verse is not from the verses of attributes. There is a great difference between this matter and that matter, and Allah knows best. And Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), the student of Shaykh al-Islam, responded to them with an explanatory response in al-Sawa'iq al-Mursalah.
The Shaykh : Okay, may Allah reward you with good.
The questioner : And you as well.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : What is the difference between the word "kafir" (disbeliever) and "kafara" (disbelieved)?
The Shaykh : "Kafir" carries the meaning of a permanent attribute, whereas "kafara" does not. Not everyone who disbelieves becomes a disbeliever. For example, not everyone who does a just act once becomes a just person, and not everyone who oppresses once becomes an oppressor. Otherwise, the attributes would be mixed among people. Al-Hajjaj, the oppressive destroyer, must have done a just act once or many times. Do we say he is just? And there must be another person, Zayd, who is just but oppressed in a case. What does he become? He takes the name "oppressor." So this active participle gives a specific attribute to the one who performed this action more than the word "kafara." Therefore, it is not permissible for us to apply the word "kafir" to a person to whom the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the word "kafara," because the word "kafara" is less than the word "kafir" in meaning. Everyone who is called a "kafir" has disbelieved, but the reverse is not true: not everyone who disbelieved is a "kafir."
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.