Explanation of the Book of Marriage-17
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And from 'Umar ibn Abi al-Salamah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to me: Bulugh al-Maram 8:98 Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim": 'Umar ibn Abi al-Salamah was the stepson of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because he was the son of Umm Salamah, and her story is well known when Abu al-Salamah passed away, and he was her cousin, and one of the people she loved most. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had said: , so when Abu al-Salamah died, she said this, and she would say to herself: "Who is better than Abu al-Salamah?" She did not say this as a complaint, but she was considering who was better than Abu al-Salamah: Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, 'Ali, al-'Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, so-and-so, so-and-so. And it did not cross her mind at that time that the one who would succeed Abu al-Salamah as her husband was the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
When the waiting period ended, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married her, and he was better for her than Abu al-Salamah.
Allah the Exalted and Majestic returned the children of Abu al-Salamah to the care of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). 'Umar was young, so he sat with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at the food. His hand was moving about in the dish to the right and to the left, because he was a child who had not been raised [properly].
So he said to him: And "al-ghulam" is the name for a young boy, and a young girl is called a "jariyah."
Riyad as-Salihin 739 Meaning: Say Bismillah. And this is a command, and the command implies obligation in the original ruling according to most of the scholars of usul al-fiqh, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: [An-Nur 24:63], where He threatens those who go against His command, and due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Sunan Abi Dawud 47Sahih (Al-Albani) So his saying: indicates that the original ruling of a command is obligation, because it is the obligation that involves hardship, since the recommended practice does not involve hardship. Why?
Why does the recommended practice not involve hardship?
Because it is permissible to leave it. The one that involves hardship is the obligatory.
So his saying: indicates that if we were commanded, it would be obligatory, because it is the one whose leaving is difficult.
The important point is that his saying: is a command, and the original ruling of a command is obligation. So is this command for obligation?
There are two opinions among the scholars regarding this:
Some said: It is for obligation. And some said: It is for recommendation:
Those who said it is for recommendation looked at the fact that it is one of the etiquettes of eating, and the original ruling of etiquettes is for refinement and upbringing, not for obligation and compulsion.
And those who said it is for obligation said: This is the original ruling of a command; the original ruling of a command is obligation. And the second opinion, meaning that it is for obligation, is the more correct one.
First: Because the original ruling of a command is obligation.
Second: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed that whoever does not say Bismillah, Satan will share in his food. And it is known that allowing Satan to share in the food is not permissible. Also, it is established from him (peace and blessings be upon him) that one day he was at food with his companions, and a girl, a small daughter, came as if being pushed. She reached her hand to the food, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) held her and ordered her to say Bismillah, and he said:, so that she would eat without saying Bismillah until he would share in the food with them. And he informed that her hand and Satan's hand were with the hand of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), meaning that Satan had extended his hand along with the extension of this girl's hand. So this indicates that the command is for obligation, and it is so. It is obligatory for a person to say Bismillah over his food as an obligation. If he does not do so, he is sinful and is pleased with Satan sharing in his food.
If he forgets, he says Bismillah when he remembers, saying: Bismillah first and last, or Bismillah only. And his saying:Riyad as-Salihin 739 implies that the Bismillah of one person is not sufficient for everyone. The aspect of the indication is: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have said Bismillah over the food, and yet he ordered this boy to say Bismillah. And this is in the case where the second person did not hear the Bismillah of the first person clearly, meaning that they came in succession, they did not sit at the food at one time. So the second one who came must say Bismillah. But if their sitting at the food was one, and one of them said Bismillah and made the others hear it, is that sufficient?
Some scholars hold that it is sufficient, because this Bismillah prevents Satan from sharing, so it is a collective obligation (fard kifayah) for them.
And what appears from the texts is that each person has his own Bismillah. The aspect of this being the apparent view is this hadith that is with us, for it appears that the boy was with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and if the food was brought, he would participate immediately.
And his saying: Does this indicate that you do not add to saying: Bismillah?
It is possible that you suffice with saying: Bismillah, and there is no doubt that this is sufficient.
But do we deny [the validity of] the one who says: Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim?
The answer is: No, we do not deny it, because Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim is called a Bismillah, so we do not deny it. But some of the scholars said: You do not say, or you do not add: al-Rahman al-Rahim to the slaughtered animal, because mercy implies compassion and tenderness, and you are now wanting to slaughter it, so there is no appropriateness between this.
And I hold that there is a consideration in this reasoning, and its aspect is: From the mercy of Allah to us, and we are more noble than the animal, is that He made it lawful for us to slaughter this beast for our interests. So it is in reality a mercy, and as if you are pointing by your saying: al-Rahman al-Rahim, to the mercy of Allah to us, for it is by His mercy to us that He made this slaughter lawful for us. Yes, that is right.
And his saying: Is the command here for obligation or for recommendation?
There is the previous disagreement in his saying:, so some of the scholars said:
That eating with the right hand is a recommended practice (sunnah) and not obligatory, and that a person who eats with his left hand does not sin, because the command is not for obligation.
And some of the scholars said: The command is for obligation, and they reasoned this by the fact that the original ruling of a command is obligation, and by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade eating with the left hand, so he said: , and by the fact that this is following the footsteps of Satan, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1799Sahih (Darussalam).
And this opinion is more correct than the opinion that the command to eat with the right hand is on the way of recommendation. So what is the correct ruling then?
The correct ruling is the obligation of eating with the right hand, and that it is not permissible to eat with the left hand except out of dire necessity. And uglier than that is that pride prevents him from eating with the right hand, for if he does that, he deserves to be cursed.:
May it be paralyzed, and I seek refuge in Allah. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not curse a person except because he committed a sin and a transgression.
And ugly of that also is eating with the left hand in imitation of the disbelievers, and believing that this is civilization, as some people do who were deceived by the conditions of the disbelievers, and thought that they could not make airplanes and bombs except because they eat with the left hand, so he thought that this was progress, so he began to eat with his left hand imitating them. And this increases its ugliness due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Abi Dawud 4031Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani).
And his saying:: Eat from what is near you. This is also a command, meaning eat from what is near you, not what is near your companion. And this command appears to be for recommendation, as is the view of the majority of scholars, except if there is harm and annoyance to your companion in eating, then here it becomes obligatory to eat from what is near you, because it is known that if you extend your hand to the side of your companion and eat from what is near the companion, he might be disgusted by this and be harmed. So the original ruling is that the command here is for recommendation: , unless there is annoyance or harm to your companion, then you must eat from what is near you.
And an exception to that is if the food is of different types, such as if there is meat, cucumbers, beans, and okra on the dish, and you pass over what is near you to these things to take from them, then there is no harm in that, due to the saying of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him):Sahih al-Bukhari 2092:
The cucumbers are gourds, so he takes them. And this is undoubtedly something where one cannot reach what one wants except by this, if the piece of meat is on the side near your companion, and we said: Eat from what is near you, what does he say?
He says: I have nothing [near me], what I want is from what is near my companion. So in this case, he is excused and there is no blame on him.
So is there an exception to the command to eat from what is near you?
If it is of different types, there is no blame on him that he chooses the type he wants, even if it is from what is near his companion.
Now, if the person with you does not mind if you eat from the portion next to him, and he may even prefer that you eat from his side so that he can eat from yours, what is the ruling?
It appears that there is no blame on you, as long as you know that the man does not care about this matter, and he may even be pleased that you eat from his side. In that case, there is nothing wrong with it, and there is no blame on you.
And his saying: : Does this include the case where you have a partner or not?
Meaning, if you are eating alone, do we say that it is better to eat from the portion next to you, or are you allowed to eat from the other side if you are alone?
As for the apparent meaning of the hadith, it is general. However, the contextual evidence indicates that it is for one who has a partner, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was addressing this young man while eating with him. Therefore, this type of etiquette is for one who has a partner. As for one who does not have a partner, let him eat from whatever he wishes, except for what is excluded in the following hadith.
Dear child, mention Allah's Name, eat with your right hand, and eat from what is next to you.
يا غلام سم الله وكل بيمينك وكل مما يليكWhoever is struck by a calamity and says, "O Allah, reward me in my calamity and replace for me something better than it," Allah will reward him and replace for him something better than it.
من أصيب بمصيبة فقال اللهم أجرني في مصيبتي وأخلف لي خيرا منها آجره الله وأخلف عليه خيرا منهاWhen the waiting period ended, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) married her, and he was better for her than Abu al-Salamah.
Allah the Exalted and Majestic returned the children of Abu al-Salamah to the care of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). 'Umar was young, so he sat with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at the food. His hand was moving about in the dish to the right and to the left, because he was a child who had not been raised [properly].
So he said to him:
O young man
يا غلامMention Allah's Name
يا غلام سم اللهSo let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment.
فليحذر الذين يخالفون عن أمره أن تصيبهم فتنة أو يصيبهم عذاب أليمWere it not hard on my ummah, I would order them to use the tooth-stick at the time of every prayer.
لولا أن أشق على أمتي لأمرتهم بالسواك عند كل صلاةI would have ordered them
لأمرتهمWhy does the recommended practice not involve hardship?
Because it is permissible to leave it. The one that involves hardship is the obligatory.
So his saying:
If it were not that I would burden them, I would have ordered them
لولا أن أشق لأمرتهمThe important point is that his saying:
In the name of Allah
سم اللهThere are two opinions among the scholars regarding this:
Some said: It is for obligation. And some said: It is for recommendation:
Those who said it is for recommendation looked at the fact that it is one of the etiquettes of eating, and the original ruling of etiquettes is for refinement and upbringing, not for obligation and compulsion.
And those who said it is for obligation said: This is the original ruling of a command; the original ruling of a command is obligation. And the second opinion, meaning that it is for obligation, is the more correct one.
First: Because the original ruling of a command is obligation.
Second: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed that whoever does not say Bismillah, Satan will share in his food. And it is known that allowing Satan to share in the food is not permissible. Also, it is established from him (peace and blessings be upon him) that one day he was at food with his companions, and a girl, a small daughter, came as if being pushed. She reached her hand to the food, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) held her and ordered her to say Bismillah, and he said:
The Satan pushed it with a push
إن الشيطان قد دفعها دفعاIf he forgets, he says Bismillah when he remembers, saying: Bismillah first and last, or Bismillah only. And his saying:
Mention Allah's Name
يا غلام سم اللهSome scholars hold that it is sufficient, because this Bismillah prevents Satan from sharing, so it is a collective obligation (fard kifayah) for them.
And what appears from the texts is that each person has his own Bismillah. The aspect of this being the apparent view is this hadith that is with us, for it appears that the boy was with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and if the food was brought, he would participate immediately.
And his saying:
In the name of Allah
سم اللهIt is possible that you suffice with saying: Bismillah, and there is no doubt that this is sufficient.
But do we deny [the validity of] the one who says: Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim?
The answer is: No, we do not deny it, because Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim is called a Bismillah, so we do not deny it. But some of the scholars said: You do not say, or you do not add: al-Rahman al-Rahim to the slaughtered animal, because mercy implies compassion and tenderness, and you are now wanting to slaughter it, so there is no appropriateness between this.
And I hold that there is a consideration in this reasoning, and its aspect is: From the mercy of Allah to us, and we are more noble than the animal, is that He made it lawful for us to slaughter this beast for our interests. So it is in reality a mercy, and as if you are pointing by your saying: al-Rahman al-Rahim, to the mercy of Allah to us, for it is by His mercy to us that He made this slaughter lawful for us. Yes, that is right.
And his saying:
Eat with your right hand
كل بيمينكThere is the previous disagreement in his saying:
In the name of Allah
سم اللهThat eating with the right hand is a recommended practice (sunnah) and not obligatory, and that a person who eats with his left hand does not sin, because the command is not for obligation.
And some of the scholars said: The command is for obligation
Eat with your right hand
كل بيمينكNo one should eat with his left hand or drink with his left hand
لا يأكل أحد بشماله ولا يشرب بشمالهfor indeed Ash-Shaitan eats with his left hand and drinks with his left hand
فإن الشيطان يأكل بشماله ويشرب بشمالهAnd this opinion is more correct than the opinion that the command to eat with the right hand is on the way of recommendation. So what is the correct ruling then?
The correct ruling is the obligation of eating with the right hand, and that it is not permissible to eat with the left hand except out of dire necessity. And uglier than that is that pride prevents him from eating with the right hand, for if he does that, he deserves to be cursed.
Because a man ate with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with his left hand, so he said to him: Eat with your right hand. He said: I cannot. Nothing prevented him but arrogance. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: You will not be able to. He did not raise his right hand to his mouth after that.
لأن رجلا أكل عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بشماله فقال له: كل بيمينك، قال: لا أستطيع، ما منعه إلا الكبر، فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : لا استطعت، فما رفع يده اليمنى إلى فيه بعد ذلكMay it be paralyzed, and I seek refuge in Allah. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not curse a person except because he committed a sin and a transgression.
And ugly of that also is eating with the left hand in imitation of the disbelievers, and believing that this is civilization, as some people do who were deceived by the conditions of the disbelievers, and thought that they could not make airplanes and bombs except because they eat with the left hand, so he thought that this was progress, so he began to eat with his left hand imitating them. And this increases its ugliness due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
He who copies any people is one of them.
من تشبه بقوم فهو منهمAnd his saying:
And eat from what is near you.
وكل مما يليكEat from what is next to you
كل مما يليكAnd an exception to that is if the food is of different types, such as if there is meat, cucumbers, beans, and okra on the dish, and you pass over what is near you to these things to take from them, then there is no harm in that, due to the saying of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him):
I saw the Prophet (ﷺ) taking the pieces of gourd from the dish
كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يتتبع الدباءThe cucumbers are gourds, so he takes them. And this is undoubtedly something where one cannot reach what one wants except by this, if the piece of meat is on the side near your companion, and we said: Eat from what is near you, what does he say?
He says: I have nothing [near me], what I want is from what is near my companion. So in this case, he is excused and there is no blame on him.
So is there an exception to the command to eat from what is near you?
If it is of different types, there is no blame on him that he chooses the type he wants, even if it is from what is near his companion.
Now, if the person with you does not mind if you eat from the portion next to him, and he may even prefer that you eat from his side so that he can eat from yours, what is the ruling?
It appears that there is no blame on you, as long as you know that the man does not care about this matter, and he may even be pleased that you eat from his side. In that case, there is nothing wrong with it, and there is no blame on you.
And his saying:
Eat from what is next to you
كل مما يليكMeaning, if you are eating alone, do we say that it is better to eat from the portion next to you, or are you allowed to eat from the other side if you are alone?
As for the apparent meaning of the hadith, it is general. However, the contextual evidence indicates that it is for one who has a partner, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was addressing this young man while eating with him. Therefore, this type of etiquette is for one who has a partner. As for one who does not have a partner, let him eat from whatever he wishes, except for what is excluded in the following hadith.