The Categories of Anger

The Shaykh : The scholars have divided anger into three categories: the highest, the lowest, and the middle. As for the highest, it is when the angry person is not aware of what he is saying, does not know what he is saying, and does not know whether he is in the sky or on the earth. In this case, his words have no ruling and no effect, neither in divorce, nor in freeing a slave, nor in endowment, nor in selling, nor in buying, nor in anything else, except what concerns the right of another person. In that case, he is held accountable for it, just as if he falsely accused someone of adultery or something similar to that. Although some scholars said that there is no fixed punishment for false accusation made out of jealousy. The second is the lowest level of anger, and this also has no effect; by "no effect" I mean that all his words and rulings are valid. The third is the middle level of anger, where he is aware of what he is saying, knows what he is saying, and knows his state, but anger compelled him to say what he said, as if someone pressed him until he spoke. There is a difference of opinion regarding this. Some scholars say that his words and actions have a ruling and are valid, while others say that his words and actions have no ruling, especially in the case of divorce. They cited as evidence the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): , meaning in a state where a person is overwhelmed. This is the correct opinion. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his companions) forbade a judge to adjudicate between two parties while he is angry, because he is unable to conceptualize the case or apply it to the rulings of the Shari'ah. Thus, two things are missed: the conceptualization, and the judgment, for judging a thing is a consequence of conceptualizing it. The second is that he does not understand how to apply it to the rulings of the Shari'ah; he is overwhelmed and does not know. There are two rights involved: a right for the person being judged and a right for Allah. He does not know whether he will hit the mark in Allah's ruling in that matter or not, and he does not know whether his conceptualization of the issue is correct or incorrect. Therefore, it is forbidden for a judge to adjudicate between two parties while he is angry. The scholars analogized this to other matters based on a valid cause, which is that anything that causes confusion of the mind makes it impermissible to adjudicate in it. Thus, it is equated with anger, such as intense joy, annoying heat, painful cold, or a person being full or having a stomachache, or something similar to that. Everything that carries the meaning of anger has its ruling. Even in intense joy, a person cannot conceptualize what he is saying. The man said: .