Reading from the author's text with commentary and collation of manuscripts: "And al-Amidi and others stated this explicitly.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner :"And al-Amidi and others stated this explicitly. Similarly, what is bought from the wealth endowed for the church or bequeathed to it, or selling tools with which they build a church or the like. The prohibition here is stronger because this very wealth that is spent is directed by him toward sin. It is like selling juice to one who will make it into intoxicants, unlike the act of residing itself, which is not forbidden, but they sin in the dwelling. It may be compared to if he sold them bread, meat, and clothes, for they may use these to aid in disbelief. Even though providing residence is greater than this, because eating and drinking themselves are not forbidden, and the benefit contracted for in the lease—which is staying—may be forbidden. Do you not see that a man is not forbidden to give charity to disbelievers and open sinners in general, but he is forbidden to allow one to sit in his house"
The Shaykh : that he allows, and he is forbidden to allow
The reader: "and he is forbidden to allow one to sit in his house who disbelieves or commits open sin. And it has been previously stated explicitly by Ibn al-Qasim that this purchase is not lawful, not lawful. And al-Shafi'i stated the prohibition of assisting them in building a church or the like. He said in the Book of Jizyah in al-Umm: 'If a dhimmi bequeaths a third of his wealth or some of it to build a church for the prayers of the Christians, or to hire servants for the church, or to maintain the church, or to light it, or to buy land to be a charity for the church, or to maintain it, or anything to this effect, the bequest is invalid. If he bequeaths to build a church that a passerby can use'"
The Shaykh : ... for the invalid
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : invalid, yes
The reader: “And if he bequeaths that a church be built for passersby to shelter in, or endows it for a group to reside in, the bequest is permissible, and there is no sin in building the church unless it is made for the prayer of the Christians whose gathering therein is upon shirk (associating partners with Allah). He said: ‘And I dislike it for a Muslim to work as a builder, carpenter, or otherwise in their churches which are for their prayers.’”
The Shaykh : And as for the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) of Ahmad, may Allah know best.
The reader: In the work
The Shaykh : In the lease, meaning
The reader: Yes, for the work of a na'us
The Shaykh : Ah?
The reader: “For the work of a na'us and the like, al-Amidi said: It is not permissible, according to a single narration, because the benefit contracted for is forbidden.”
The Shaykh : The na'us, this is likely one of their festivals or one of their works; the author did not mention anything.
The reader: He did not mention anything.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The reader: “And likewise, the lease for building a church, a monastery, or a hermitage is like the lease for their distorted books. As for the issue of carrying intoxicants, carrion, or pork for a Christian or a Muslim, the wording of Ahmad has been mentioned previously, where he said regarding one who carries intoxicants, pork, or carrion for a Christian: ‘It is disliked to eat his hire, but the carrier is to be paid the hire.’”
The Shaykh : It is disliked.
The student: I have an addition.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I have an addition.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: I have an addition.
The Shaykh : And they are
The student: Or by estimation, or ... with hire, or it resembles a dead animal ...
The Shaykh : The one I have is correct, yes.
The reader: The brothers who say the na'us was mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: Listen ...
The Shaykh : From the one who mentioned the na'us.
The reader: The marginal note.
The Shaykh : The marginal note.
The Reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not on the same book.
The reader: No, it appears
The Shaykh : Or in another place.
The reader: Yes, yes, it says: “The na'us is a box of wood or the like in which they place the corpse of the dead.”
The Shaykh : What?
The reader: “A box of wood or the like in which they place the corpse of the dead.”
The Shaykh : Yes, like a coffin.
The Reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : If you go back, it is better.
The reader: Listen
The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: So it is disliked
The Shaykh : To eat his hire.
The reader: “So it is disliked to eat his hire, but the carrier is to be paid the hire.”
The Shaykh : It is paid, it is paid.
The reader: “But the carrier is to be paid the hire. And if it is for a Muslim, it is more severe. Some of them increased in this, and it is disliked to carry carrion for hire or to take out a dead animal or the like. Then our scholars differed on this answer in three ways. The first is to apply it according to its apparent meaning, and that the issue is a single narration.”
The Shaykh : Narration.
The reader: Yes, “And that the issue is a single narration ...”
The Shaykh : ... Narration is better.
The reader: “And that the issue is a single narration. Ibn Abi Musa said: Ahmad disliked a Muslim hiring himself to carry carrion or pork for a Christian. He said: ‘If he does so, he is to be paid the hire. And if he hires himself to carry a forbidden item for a Muslim, the dislike is more severe, and he takes ...’”
The Shaykh : To carry a forbidden item for a Muslim, do you have it?
The student: Yes.
The reader: “... and he takes the hire. And whether it is lawful for him or not is on two views, the most correct of which is that it is not lawful for him, and he should give it in charity. And so Abu al-Hasan al-Amidi mentioned. He said: ‘And if he hires himself ...’”
The Shaykh : He said if
The reader: He said if
The Shaykh : If without the waw, he said if
The reader: “He said: ‘If he hires himself from a man to carry intoxicants, pork, or carrion, it is disliked, and he specified this. And this is a dislike of prohibition, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) cursed the carrier of it. If this is established, he is to be paid the hire, and it is not impossible to pay the hire even if it is forbidden, like the lease of a cupper.’”
The Shaykh :“And it is not impossible to pay the hire even if it is forbidden.”
The reader: “And it is not impossible to pay the hire even if it is forbidden, like the lease of a cupper. These scholars have explicitly stated that he is entitled to the wage even though it is forbidden for him, according to the correct view. The second way is to interpret this narration in a way that contradicts its apparent meaning, and to make the issue a single narration, that this lease is not valid. This is the way of al-Qadi in al-Mujarrad, and it is a weak way from which al-Qadi recanted in his later books, for he composed al-Mujarrad early. The third way is to derive this issue on two narrations.”
The Shaykh : Derive.
The reader: Yes, “Derive this issue on two narrations. One is that this lease is valid and he is entitled to the wage with the dislike of the act and the wage. The second is that the lease is not valid and he is not entitled to a wage for it, even if he carried it. This is based on the analogy of his statement that it is not permissible to keep intoxicants and they must be poured out. He said in a narration of Abu Talib: ‘If a man becomes Muslim and he has intoxicants or pigs, the intoxicants are poured out and the pigs are released, and they have become forbidden for him. And if he kills them, there is no harm ...’”
The Shaykh : I have pigs, they have become forbidden, they have become forbidden without the waw, meaning it is an explanation.
The reader: “And the pigs are released. They have become forbidden for him. And if he kills them, there is no harm. He has specified that it is not permissible to keep them. And because he specified in a narration of Ibn Mansur that it is disliked to hire himself to watch over the Christian’s vineyard, because the origin of that returns to intoxicants, unless it is known that it is sold for other than intoxicants. So he prevented the hiring of himself to guard the vineyard which is made for intoxicants, so it is more fitting to prevent the hiring of himself to carry intoxicants.”
This is the method of the Qadi in his commentary and his practice, and it is the method of most of his followers, such as Abu al-Khattab. It is also the method of the later scholars who followed in his footsteps. Al-Mansur holds, in their view, the transmitted report that has been extracted, which is the position of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. This is the view of our scholars in the case where one hires someone to carry intoxicants to his house, his shop, or a place where it is not permissible to store them, whether the carrying is for drinking or in general. However, if he is carrying them to pour them out, or carrying carrion to move it to the desert so that people are not bothered by its foul smell, then it is permissible to hire for that, because it is a permissible act. But if the wage is the skin of the carrion, the contract is invalid, and he is entitled to the wage of the equivalent. If he has already flayed the skin and taken it, he must return it to its owner. This is the position of Malik, and I think it is also the position of al-Shafi'i. The position of Abu Hanifa is like the first transmitted report, and his basis for that is that if the carrying is in general, the one entitled to the wage is not the specific act of carrying the intoxicants
The Shaykh : And this, and his basis
The reader: Yes, “And his basis for that is that if the carrying is in general, the one entitled is not the specific carrying of intoxicants.”
The student: Then, other
The Shaykh : Here, other
The reader: Yes, other in a copy, it says in the printed edition: “Other than the carrying of intoxicants.”
The Shaykh : Yes, and also
The reader: Yes, the correct one
The Shaykh : Other is better, and it has a face for it.
The reader: “And also, the mere carrying of it is not a sin, because it is permissible that it be carried to be poured out or to be pickled with it. And for this reason, if the carrying is for drinking, it is not valid. And with this, it is disliked to carry it. And the most likely, may Allah know best, is the way of Ibn Abi Musa, for it is closer to the intent of Ahmad and closer to the analogy. And that is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) So the presser and the carrier have exchanged for a benefit that is entitled to a compensation, and it is not forbidden in itself, but it was forbidden due to the intent of the presser and the carrier. So it is like if he sold grapes or juice to one who would make it into intoxicants, and the juice perished.”
The Shaykh : To whom, to whom would make it
The reader: “So it is like if he sold grapes or juice to one who would make it into intoxicants, and the juice perished and the intoxicants are in the hand of the buyer. Then the seller’s wealth does not go for free, but he is to be paid its compensation. Likewise here, the benefit that the lessor provided does not go for free.”
The Shaykh : The lessor.
The reader: “The benefit that he provided.”
The Shaykh : The lessor.
The reader: “The lessor does not go for free, but he is given its substitute. And the prohibition of benefiting from it was only from the side of the lessee, not from his side. And then we prohibit the wage for him for the right of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, not for the right of the lessee and the buyer. Unlike one who is hired for zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) or sodomy or killing or usurpation or theft, for the act itself is forbidden, not for the sake of the buyer’s intent. So it is like if he sold carrion or intoxicants, for he is not paid its price, because the item itself is forbidden.”
The Shaykh : This
The reader: “Because the item itself is forbidden. And like this lease and the reward (ja'alah), it is not described as valid absolutely, nor as defective absolutely, but it is said: It is valid with respect to the lessee, in that he must pay the reward and the wage, and it is defective with respect to the worker, in that it is forbidden for him to benefit from the wage and the reward. And for this reason.”
The Shaykh : that he allows, and he is forbidden to allow
The reader: "and he is forbidden to allow one to sit in his house who disbelieves or commits open sin. And it has been previously stated explicitly by Ibn al-Qasim that this purchase is not lawful, not lawful. And al-Shafi'i stated the prohibition of assisting them in building a church or the like. He said in the Book of Jizyah in al-Umm: 'If a dhimmi bequeaths a third of his wealth or some of it to build a church for the prayers of the Christians, or to hire servants for the church, or to maintain the church, or to light it, or to buy land to be a charity for the church, or to maintain it, or anything to this effect, the bequest is invalid. If he bequeaths to build a church that a passerby can use'"
The Shaykh : ... for the invalid
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : invalid, yes
The reader: “And if he bequeaths that a church be built for passersby to shelter in, or endows it for a group to reside in, the bequest is permissible, and there is no sin in building the church unless it is made for the prayer of the Christians whose gathering therein is upon shirk (associating partners with Allah). He said: ‘And I dislike it for a Muslim to work as a builder, carpenter, or otherwise in their churches which are for their prayers.’”
The Shaykh : And as for the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) of Ahmad, may Allah know best.
The reader: In the work
The Shaykh : In the lease, meaning
The reader: Yes, for the work of a na'us
The Shaykh : Ah?
The reader: “For the work of a na'us and the like, al-Amidi said: It is not permissible, according to a single narration, because the benefit contracted for is forbidden.”
The Shaykh : The na'us, this is likely one of their festivals or one of their works; the author did not mention anything.
The reader: He did not mention anything.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The reader: “And likewise, the lease for building a church, a monastery, or a hermitage is like the lease for their distorted books. As for the issue of carrying intoxicants, carrion, or pork for a Christian or a Muslim, the wording of Ahmad has been mentioned previously, where he said regarding one who carries intoxicants, pork, or carrion for a Christian: ‘It is disliked to eat his hire, but the carrier is to be paid the hire.’”
The Shaykh : It is disliked.
The student: I have an addition.
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: I have an addition.
The Shaykh : What?
The student: I have an addition.
The Shaykh : And they are
The student: Or by estimation, or ... with hire, or it resembles a dead animal ...
The Shaykh : The one I have is correct, yes.
The reader: The brothers who say the na'us was mentioned.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The reader: Listen ...
The Shaykh : From the one who mentioned the na'us.
The reader: The marginal note.
The Shaykh : The marginal note.
The Reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not on the same book.
The reader: No, it appears
The Shaykh : Or in another place.
The reader: Yes, yes, it says: “The na'us is a box of wood or the like in which they place the corpse of the dead.”
The Shaykh : What?
The reader: “A box of wood or the like in which they place the corpse of the dead.”
The Shaykh : Yes, like a coffin.
The Reader: Yes.
The Shaykh : If you go back, it is better.
The reader: Listen
The Shaykh : Yes
The reader: So it is disliked
The Shaykh : To eat his hire.
The reader: “So it is disliked to eat his hire, but the carrier is to be paid the hire.”
The Shaykh : It is paid, it is paid.
The reader: “But the carrier is to be paid the hire. And if it is for a Muslim, it is more severe. Some of them increased in this, and it is disliked to carry carrion for hire or to take out a dead animal or the like. Then our scholars differed on this answer in three ways. The first is to apply it according to its apparent meaning, and that the issue is a single narration.”
The Shaykh : Narration.
The reader: Yes, “And that the issue is a single narration ...”
The Shaykh : ... Narration is better.
The reader: “And that the issue is a single narration. Ibn Abi Musa said: Ahmad disliked a Muslim hiring himself to carry carrion or pork for a Christian. He said: ‘If he does so, he is to be paid the hire. And if he hires himself to carry a forbidden item for a Muslim, the dislike is more severe, and he takes ...’”
The Shaykh : To carry a forbidden item for a Muslim, do you have it?
The student: Yes.
The reader: “... and he takes the hire. And whether it is lawful for him or not is on two views, the most correct of which is that it is not lawful for him, and he should give it in charity. And so Abu al-Hasan al-Amidi mentioned. He said: ‘And if he hires himself ...’”
The Shaykh : He said if
The reader: He said if
The Shaykh : If without the waw, he said if
The reader: “He said: ‘If he hires himself from a man to carry intoxicants, pork, or carrion, it is disliked, and he specified this. And this is a dislike of prohibition, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) cursed the carrier of it. If this is established, he is to be paid the hire, and it is not impossible to pay the hire even if it is forbidden, like the lease of a cupper.’”
The Shaykh :“And it is not impossible to pay the hire even if it is forbidden.”
The reader: “And it is not impossible to pay the hire even if it is forbidden, like the lease of a cupper. These scholars have explicitly stated that he is entitled to the wage even though it is forbidden for him, according to the correct view. The second way is to interpret this narration in a way that contradicts its apparent meaning, and to make the issue a single narration, that this lease is not valid. This is the way of al-Qadi in al-Mujarrad, and it is a weak way from which al-Qadi recanted in his later books, for he composed al-Mujarrad early. The third way is to derive this issue on two narrations.”
The Shaykh : Derive.
The reader: Yes, “Derive this issue on two narrations. One is that this lease is valid and he is entitled to the wage with the dislike of the act and the wage. The second is that the lease is not valid and he is not entitled to a wage for it, even if he carried it. This is based on the analogy of his statement that it is not permissible to keep intoxicants and they must be poured out. He said in a narration of Abu Talib: ‘If a man becomes Muslim and he has intoxicants or pigs, the intoxicants are poured out and the pigs are released, and they have become forbidden for him. And if he kills them, there is no harm ...’”
The Shaykh : I have pigs, they have become forbidden, they have become forbidden without the waw, meaning it is an explanation.
The reader: “And the pigs are released. They have become forbidden for him. And if he kills them, there is no harm. He has specified that it is not permissible to keep them. And because he specified in a narration of Ibn Mansur that it is disliked to hire himself to watch over the Christian’s vineyard, because the origin of that returns to intoxicants, unless it is known that it is sold for other than intoxicants. So he prevented the hiring of himself to guard the vineyard which is made for intoxicants, so it is more fitting to prevent the hiring of himself to carry intoxicants.”
This is the method of the Qadi in his commentary and his practice, and it is the method of most of his followers, such as Abu al-Khattab. It is also the method of the later scholars who followed in his footsteps. Al-Mansur holds, in their view, the transmitted report that has been extracted, which is the position of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. This is the view of our scholars in the case where one hires someone to carry intoxicants to his house, his shop, or a place where it is not permissible to store them, whether the carrying is for drinking or in general. However, if he is carrying them to pour them out, or carrying carrion to move it to the desert so that people are not bothered by its foul smell, then it is permissible to hire for that, because it is a permissible act. But if the wage is the skin of the carrion, the contract is invalid, and he is entitled to the wage of the equivalent. If he has already flayed the skin and taken it, he must return it to its owner. This is the position of Malik, and I think it is also the position of al-Shafi'i. The position of Abu Hanifa is like the first transmitted report, and his basis for that is that if the carrying is in general, the one entitled to the wage is not the specific act of carrying the intoxicants
The Shaykh : And this, and his basis
The reader: Yes, “And his basis for that is that if the carrying is in general, the one entitled is not the specific carrying of intoxicants.”
The student: Then, other
The Shaykh : Here, other
The reader: Yes, other in a copy, it says in the printed edition: “Other than the carrying of intoxicants.”
The Shaykh : Yes, and also
The reader: Yes, the correct one
The Shaykh : Other is better, and it has a face for it.
The reader: “And also, the mere carrying of it is not a sin, because it is permissible that it be carried to be poured out or to be pickled with it. And for this reason, if the carrying is for drinking, it is not valid. And with this, it is disliked to carry it. And the most likely, may Allah know best, is the way of Ibn Abi Musa, for it is closer to the intent of Ahmad and closer to the analogy. And that is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) cursed the one who brews intoxicants, the one who presses them, the one who carries them, and the one to whom they are carried.
لعن عاصر الخمر ومعتصرها وحاملها والمحمولة إليهThe Shaykh : To whom, to whom would make it
The reader: “So it is like if he sold grapes or juice to one who would make it into intoxicants, and the juice perished and the intoxicants are in the hand of the buyer. Then the seller’s wealth does not go for free, but he is to be paid its compensation. Likewise here, the benefit that the lessor provided does not go for free.”
The Shaykh : The lessor.
The reader: “The benefit that he provided.”
The Shaykh : The lessor.
The reader: “The lessor does not go for free, but he is given its substitute. And the prohibition of benefiting from it was only from the side of the lessee, not from his side. And then we prohibit the wage for him for the right of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, not for the right of the lessee and the buyer. Unlike one who is hired for zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) or sodomy or killing or usurpation or theft, for the act itself is forbidden, not for the sake of the buyer’s intent. So it is like if he sold carrion or intoxicants, for he is not paid its price, because the item itself is forbidden.”
The Shaykh : This
The reader: “Because the item itself is forbidden. And like this lease and the reward (ja'alah), it is not described as valid absolutely, nor as defective absolutely, but it is said: It is valid with respect to the lessee, in that he must pay the reward and the wage, and it is defective with respect to the worker, in that it is forbidden for him to benefit from the wage and the reward. And for this reason.”