Explanation of the Book of Marriage-16
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said: "And from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sahih Muslim 1429a Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim. And Muslim has: Sahih Muslim 1429e "
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 1429b What is a wedding feast?
It is the food prepared for the occasion of the wedding, whether it is on the night of the consummation, before it, or after it. The previous hadith of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf indicates that the wedding feast is to be held after the consummation, and it is not necessary for it to be at the time of the consummation. So, whatever is prepared during the days of the wedding is called a wedding feast.
And his saying:: The lam here is for command, meaning: let him attend the wedding feast and not delay. The default ruling for a command is obligation, and what confirms this will come, if Allah wills.
He said, and Muslim has:Sahih Muslim 1429e:
When one of you is invited by his brother: And the brother of one of us is the Muslim. As for the dhimmi, the one with a treaty, and the one granted safe conduct, responding to their invitation is not obligatory; rather, it may be disliked or forbidden depending on the evil and corruption it leads to.
And his saying:Sahih Muslim 1429e:
A wedding is well known. "Or something similar" means: something for which a wedding feast is prescribed. As for what is not prescribed for a wedding feast, it falls under general invitations to which it is recommended to respond.
And know that invitations are either to something forbidden, or to something disliked, or to something permissible, or to something prescribed:
If it is to something forbidden, then responding is forbidden. Or if it is to something disliked, then responding is disliked. Or if it is to something permissible, then responding is permissible, but it is recommended because of the affection and comforting of hearts that result from it, and the like. Or if it is to something prescribed, then it is prescribed.
And his saying:: The apparent meaning of the hadith is general, but it is restricted by what will come, if Allah wills, which is: that it be the first time. If it is the second or third time, then responding is not obligatory.
Second: That there be no munkar (what is wrong) in the place of the invitation. If there is munkar, then responding is not obligatory unless one is able to change it. If one is able to change it, then responding is obligatory for two reasons:
The first reason: The invitation.
And the second reason: Removing the munkar.
Now, if one is not able to change it, but he will be in another place other than the one with the munkar, for example, if the host of the wedding feast has prepared two places: one place with musical instruments, entertainment, and forbidden singing, and a place free of that, is responding obligatory?
The scholars say: In this issue, one is given a choice between responding and not responding. And if that is the case, one must look at the public benefit (maslahah). If the benefit is in responding, he responds. And if the benefit is in not responding, it is not obligatory.
So we say: It is a condition that there be no munkar in the place of the invitation. If there is munkar, we look: if one is not able to change it, responding is forbidden. And if one is able, responding is obligatory for two reasons.
As for if the munkar is not in the place to which you were invited, but in another place, it is merely accompanying the wedding feast, the scholars have said: The person is given a choice. And based on this, we say: Look at what is in the public benefit. If the benefit is in attending, attend. Otherwise, do not attend. Now, it is a condition that the inviter be a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, responding is not obligatory. It is a condition that he not be an innovator with an innovation that associates him with open sinners or disbelievers. If he is an innovator in that way, he is not to be responded to, because of the strengthening of his side and the raising of his status that would result from it.
It is a condition that the money not be forbidden. If the money is forbidden, then responding is not permissible. For example, if I know that this man who invited me to the wedding feast stole the sheep that he slaughtered, and stole the food, then responding is not permissible here.
As for if he is one who deals in forbidden things, then responding is permissible, and it is not obligatory nor forbidden. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) responded to the invitation of the Jews, and ate from the sheep that the Jewish woman gifted to him, even though it is well known about the Jews that they used to take riba (usury or interest) and eat illicit earnings.
So there is a difference between something being forbidden in itself or being forbidden by its acquisition. The forbidden in itself is not permissible for you to eat. What is an example, Adam? Adam ibn Zakariyya?
The student: I do not know.
The Shaykh : Salim?
The student: Yes, that I know the wedding feast is from forbidden things.
The Shaykh : For example, if I know that this man stole the sheep and slaughtered them, or stole the food and cooked it, then it is not permissible for me to respond to him, because I would be eating something forbidden in itself. The forbidden by its acquisition, is it valid?
The student: The forbidden by its acquisition?
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The student: For example, if the money that!
The Shaykh : For example, if the inviter is one who deals in riba (usury or interest) or deception or lying, then is responding here?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Permissible, not forbidden nor obligatory. But if there is a benefit in not responding, such that he repents from what he is doing, then at that time, not responding becomes necessary. Because we have a rule regarding the permissible: Every permissible thing is permissible in itself, but if it becomes a means to an obligatory act, it becomes obligatory; or to a forbidden act, it becomes forbidden; or to a recommended act, it becomes recommended; or to a disliked act, it becomes disliked. Because the permissible is affected by the five rulings according to what it is a means to.
So the conditions for responding are:
That the inviter be a Muslim.
And the second: That he not be an innovator with a major shirk (associating partners with Allah) or an innovation that makes him an open sinner.
The third: That there be no forbidden thing in the place.
The fourth: That his earnings not be forbidden, or that the wedding feast itself not be forbidden.
The fifth: That it be the first time. This is for the first time. If he held a wedding feast and then repeated the wedding feast, or repeated it the third time, then responding to this is not obligatory, as will come in the hadiths.
Now, other than the wedding feast, is responding to the inviter obligatory or not?
In this, there is scholarly disagreement (khilaf): The Zahiris hold that responding to the invitation is obligatory if the conditions we mentioned are met.
And others hold that it is not obligatory, but it is recommended, unlike the wedding feast.
There remains a condition that we can make the sixth condition:
And that is that the invitee not suffer harm. If he suffers harm, then the obligation is dropped. Because if purity with water, which is a condition for the validity of the prayer, is dropped if a person is harmed by it, what do you say about this?
When any one of you is invited to a feast, he should attend it.
إذا دعي أحدكم إلى الوليمة فليأتهاWhen any one of you invites his brother, he (the latter) should accept his wedding feast, or any other like it.
إذا دعا أحدكم أخاه فليجب عرسا كان أو نحوهThe Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
When any one of you is invited to a feast
إذا دعي أحدكم إلى الوليمةIt is the food prepared for the occasion of the wedding, whether it is on the night of the consummation, before it, or after it. The previous hadith of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf indicates that the wedding feast is to be held after the consummation, and it is not necessary for it to be at the time of the consummation. So, whatever is prepared during the days of the wedding is called a wedding feast.
And his saying:
When invited, let him attend it
إذا دعي فليأتهاHe said, and Muslim has:
When any one of you invites his brother, he (the latter) should accept his wedding feast, or any other like it.
إذا دعا أحدكم أخاه فليجب عرسا كان أو نحوهWhen one of you is invited by his brother: And the brother of one of us is the Muslim. As for the dhimmi, the one with a treaty, and the one granted safe conduct, responding to their invitation is not obligatory; rather, it may be disliked or forbidden depending on the evil and corruption it leads to.
And his saying:
he (the latter) should accept his wedding feast, or any other like it.
فليجب عرسا كان أو نحوهA wedding is well known. "Or something similar" means: something for which a wedding feast is prescribed. As for what is not prescribed for a wedding feast, it falls under general invitations to which it is recommended to respond.
And know that invitations are either to something forbidden, or to something disliked, or to something permissible, or to something prescribed:
If it is to something forbidden, then responding is forbidden. Or if it is to something disliked, then responding is disliked. Or if it is to something permissible, then responding is permissible, but it is recommended because of the affection and comforting of hearts that result from it, and the like. Or if it is to something prescribed, then it is prescribed.
And his saying:
To a wedding feast, let him attend it
إلى الوليمة فليأتهاSecond: That there be no munkar (what is wrong) in the place of the invitation. If there is munkar, then responding is not obligatory unless one is able to change it. If one is able to change it, then responding is obligatory for two reasons:
The first reason: The invitation.
And the second reason: Removing the munkar.
Now, if one is not able to change it, but he will be in another place other than the one with the munkar, for example, if the host of the wedding feast has prepared two places: one place with musical instruments, entertainment, and forbidden singing, and a place free of that, is responding obligatory?
The scholars say: In this issue, one is given a choice between responding and not responding. And if that is the case, one must look at the public benefit (maslahah). If the benefit is in responding, he responds. And if the benefit is in not responding, it is not obligatory.
So we say: It is a condition that there be no munkar in the place of the invitation. If there is munkar, we look: if one is not able to change it, responding is forbidden. And if one is able, responding is obligatory for two reasons.
As for if the munkar is not in the place to which you were invited, but in another place, it is merely accompanying the wedding feast, the scholars have said: The person is given a choice. And based on this, we say: Look at what is in the public benefit. If the benefit is in attending, attend. Otherwise, do not attend. Now, it is a condition that the inviter be a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, responding is not obligatory. It is a condition that he not be an innovator with an innovation that associates him with open sinners or disbelievers. If he is an innovator in that way, he is not to be responded to, because of the strengthening of his side and the raising of his status that would result from it.
It is a condition that the money not be forbidden. If the money is forbidden, then responding is not permissible. For example, if I know that this man who invited me to the wedding feast stole the sheep that he slaughtered, and stole the food, then responding is not permissible here.
As for if he is one who deals in forbidden things, then responding is permissible, and it is not obligatory nor forbidden. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) responded to the invitation of the Jews, and ate from the sheep that the Jewish woman gifted to him, even though it is well known about the Jews that they used to take riba (usury or interest) and eat illicit earnings.
So there is a difference between something being forbidden in itself or being forbidden by its acquisition. The forbidden in itself is not permissible for you to eat. What is an example, Adam? Adam ibn Zakariyya?
The student: I do not know.
The Shaykh : Salim?
The student: Yes, that I know the wedding feast is from forbidden things.
The Shaykh : For example, if I know that this man stole the sheep and slaughtered them, or stole the food and cooked it, then it is not permissible for me to respond to him, because I would be eating something forbidden in itself. The forbidden by its acquisition, is it valid?
The student: The forbidden by its acquisition?
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The student: For example, if the money that!
The Shaykh : For example, if the inviter is one who deals in riba (usury or interest) or deception or lying, then is responding here?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Permissible, not forbidden nor obligatory. But if there is a benefit in not responding, such that he repents from what he is doing, then at that time, not responding becomes necessary. Because we have a rule regarding the permissible: Every permissible thing is permissible in itself, but if it becomes a means to an obligatory act, it becomes obligatory; or to a forbidden act, it becomes forbidden; or to a recommended act, it becomes recommended; or to a disliked act, it becomes disliked. Because the permissible is affected by the five rulings according to what it is a means to.
So the conditions for responding are:
That the inviter be a Muslim.
And the second: That he not be an innovator with a major shirk (associating partners with Allah) or an innovation that makes him an open sinner.
The third: That there be no forbidden thing in the place.
The fourth: That his earnings not be forbidden, or that the wedding feast itself not be forbidden.
The fifth: That it be the first time. This is for the first time. If he held a wedding feast and then repeated the wedding feast, or repeated it the third time, then responding to this is not obligatory, as will come in the hadiths.
Now, other than the wedding feast, is responding to the inviter obligatory or not?
In this, there is scholarly disagreement (khilaf): The Zahiris hold that responding to the invitation is obligatory if the conditions we mentioned are met.
And others hold that it is not obligatory, but it is recommended, unlike the wedding feast.
There remains a condition that we can make the sixth condition:
And that is that the invitee not suffer harm. If he suffers harm, then the obligation is dropped. Because if purity with water, which is a condition for the validity of the prayer, is dropped if a person is harmed by it, what do you say about this?