"Without Intercourse, Hunting, Trimming, or Shaving"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said: "Without intercourse, hunting, trimming, or shaving" How is this? "Without intercourse" means that the fidyah (expiatory payment) is not waived if one has intercourse while forgetting, or while ignorant, or while coerced. Pay attention: if one has intercourse while forgetting, or while ignorant, or while coerced, why? They said: because forgetting is unlikely for a person in ihram who knows that intercourse is forbidden, especially since he is wearing the ihram garments. If it is assumed that he forgot, his wife reminded him, but the latter is not a valid reasoning because we say that if he is reminded, the forgetting ceases. However, as long as he is forgetting, he may be forgetting, and so may the wife. It is said that this forgetting is unlikely. So the answer to this is: Is forgetting a description that waives the ruling of the prohibited act, or not? Yes, there is no doubt. If that is the case, whether the ignorance is frequent or not, they said he is not excused for it. If he has intercourse with his wife while ignorant, he is not excused. Let us suppose a man had intercourse with his wife on the night of Muzdalifah because he heard that Hajj is 'Arafah and said: "Hajj is over," and he had intercourse. Is this intercourse ignorance or intention? It is ignorance. Why do we not excuse him? This ignorance is close; it is not an unlikely matter for one to be ignorant. They said: because it involves destruction. What is the destruction? They said: the loss of virginity. Well, if he is a man who has been married to his wife for thirty years, where is the virginity? They said: because intercourse obligates the mahr (bridal gift). Is the mahr a right of Allah or a right of a human being?
The questioner : A human being.
The Shaykh : It is a human right. If a man had intercourse with a woman who is not his wife, the mahr would be obligatory on him, but this mahr is a right of whom? Of the human being. A human being is not excused for ignorance regarding their rights. But the right of the Most Noble of the Nobles, Mighty and Majestic, if He, Glorified and Exalted is He, has waived it for His servants, should we obligate the servants with it? No. As for coercion, they said it does not waive it. If a man is coerced to have intercourse with his wife, it is not waived; the fidyah is not waived. The problem is: if it was before the first tahallul (exiting the state of ihram), what is obligatory on him? Five rulings: the sacrifice of a camel, making up the Hajj, the invalidity of the ritual, continuing in it, and sin. They said: even if he was coerced, whether coerced or not, the rulings apply to him. Why, people? They said: because coercion to have intercourse is impossible. Do you see? It is not the one being coerced who is the one having intercourse, or rather, the one being coerced is the woman. It has been established that if a woman is coerced, there is nothing on her. But as for the one having intercourse, they said coercion is impossible because there is no intercourse without arousal, and there is no arousal with coercion. But this reasoning is defective, because who said that there is no arousal with coercion? If his wife forced him, let us say she is a new, young wife, and she forced him and said, "Either you do it, or I will use the gun," and she is new and young. Now he is between two things: either he leaves her, and she may carry out her threat, or he has intercourse. In this case, if he approaches her, no matter what, he will be aroused and will have intercourse. So the statement that there is no intercourse with coercion is incorrect. And thus, intercourse can occur with coercion, and yet they say that the fidyah is not waived in it. Good.
The second is: hunting. One is not excused for it by forgetting, nor by ignorance, nor by coercion. One is not excused for it by forgetting, nor by ignorance, nor by coercion. Why? They said: because it is destruction, and destruction is the same whether intentional or not. Is there evidence for this? No, there is a reasoning, but it is a reasoning that will be shown to be defective. So we say: Glory be to Allah, the Ruler over His servants, and between His servants, He says:[Al-Ma'idah 5:95] Is this possible? It is not possible. And "intentional" is a description appropriate to the ruling, so it must be considered, because descriptions that are attached to rulings, if their appropriateness to them is established, become a cause that necessitates the ruling by their presence and negates it by their absence. Otherwise, the description would have no benefit. So we say: this statement that there is no difference between the intentional, the ignorant, the forgetful, and the coerced is a statement contrary to the Qur'an. [Al-Ma'idah 5:95] And this is a text on the subject. That is to say, if we had argued by His saying, the Exalted: [Al-Baqarah 2:286] a person might say that this generality can be specified. But now there is specific evidence that hunting, if it is not intentional, has no penalty. Good. What is the answer to their reasoning? The answer to their reasoning is that the destruction in which intentional and unintentional are the same is what is in the right of a human being. As for what is in the right of Allah, which He, Glorified and Exalted is He, has waived out of His generosity and kindness, are we more knowledgeable about Allah's right than Allah? Never. If Allah has waived it, how do we obligate the servants with it? And for this reason, the stronger opinion is that if one insults Allah and then repents, we do not kill him. And if one insults the Messenger and then repents, we kill him. Why? Because we know that Allah has forgiven His right, but as for the Messenger, we do not know. Good, let us proceed.
"And shaving and trimming" Also, trimming is not waived by forgetting, ignorance, or coercion. We must illustrate the issue of hunting regarding forgetting: a man saw game and was obsessed with hunting, so he forgot and took the rifle and shot, and as much game as Allah willed fell. According to the madhhab (school of thought), the fidyah is obligatory on him. Ignorance: a man, as we said at the beginning, stood at 'Arafah and heard that Hajj is 'Arafah. So when it was the morning of the festival, before he threw the pebbles, he found game, such as birds or gazelles or others, and hunted it. What is this? He is ignorant, and the penalty is obligatory on him. A coerced man: a servant of his master, and his master said to him, "Come, this game, go and bring it to us." He said, "I am in ihram, uncle." He said, "There is no choice; either you do it, or I will do to you what I will do." He coerced him, and he hunted. Is the penalty obligatory on him or not?
The questioner : According to the madhhab, it is obligatory on him.
The Shaykh : The penalty is obligatory on him according to the madhhab. Good. Trimming: trimming what? Trimming the nails is not waived by forgetting, nor by ignorance, nor by coercion. Brother 'Abd al-Razzaq, pay attention to this. We asked 'Abd al-Razzaq a few nights ago: a man always peels his nails with his teeth. Is the fidyah waived or not? It is not waived, even if it was forgetting, even if it was ignorance, even if it was coercion; it is not waived. Why? Do you not say that trimming the nails is forbidden for the one in ihram because it is a matter of luxury, or not? Good. Perfume and clothing are luxury. You said that there is a fidyah for them because they are luxury, or is there no text? We say: Glory be to Allah, trimming the nails is a matter of luxury, and yet you do not excuse it by ignorance, forgetting, and coercion. And clothing and perfume are a matter of luxury, and you excuse them by ignorance, forgetting, and coercion. They said: Yes, but there is a difference. The difference is that this is destruction. Trimming the nails is destruction. Destruction of what? Does it have value? And is this destruction required or prohibited outside of ihram?
The questioner : Required.
The Shaykh : Required. So it has no value, neither in the Shari'ah nor in custom, and no one collects their nails to sell them, ever. So it has no value. Where is the destruction that he mentions? And even if it is destruction, it is permissible destruction, indeed prescribed, were it not for the ihram. The same applies to the head. He said: "And shaving," it is the same, exactly the same. The cause for the obligation of the fidyah in general is that it is destruction. Destruction of what?
The questioner : Of hair.
The Shaykh : Hair has no value at all. If people wanted to benefit from hair, they have the hair of sheep and camels and others. Yes, perhaps if a person had a lot of long hair, it might have value; a woman with no hair might buy it and make it a wig. No, and yet this is not permissible. But we say it is possible that it has a price, and with this, we do not agree that it is destruction, because it is destruction that has no value. This shows the weakness of this statement. The greatest of destructions, and it is clear destruction, is: hunting. And yet Allah, the Exalted, conditioned the obligation of the penalty in it with intention, and it is the origin of destructions. So we return once more and say: the doer of the prohibited acts, in the stronger opinion, is divided into an exhaustive division, if Allah wills. The doer of all the prohibited acts does not escape from three states...
The questioner : A human being.
The Shaykh : It is a human right. If a man had intercourse with a woman who is not his wife, the mahr would be obligatory on him, but this mahr is a right of whom? Of the human being. A human being is not excused for ignorance regarding their rights. But the right of the Most Noble of the Nobles, Mighty and Majestic, if He, Glorified and Exalted is He, has waived it for His servants, should we obligate the servants with it? No. As for coercion, they said it does not waive it. If a man is coerced to have intercourse with his wife, it is not waived; the fidyah is not waived. The problem is: if it was before the first tahallul (exiting the state of ihram), what is obligatory on him? Five rulings: the sacrifice of a camel, making up the Hajj, the invalidity of the ritual, continuing in it, and sin. They said: even if he was coerced, whether coerced or not, the rulings apply to him. Why, people? They said: because coercion to have intercourse is impossible. Do you see? It is not the one being coerced who is the one having intercourse, or rather, the one being coerced is the woman. It has been established that if a woman is coerced, there is nothing on her. But as for the one having intercourse, they said coercion is impossible because there is no intercourse without arousal, and there is no arousal with coercion. But this reasoning is defective, because who said that there is no arousal with coercion? If his wife forced him, let us say she is a new, young wife, and she forced him and said, "Either you do it, or I will use the gun," and she is new and young. Now he is between two things: either he leaves her, and she may carry out her threat, or he has intercourse. In this case, if he approaches her, no matter what, he will be aroused and will have intercourse. So the statement that there is no intercourse with coercion is incorrect. And thus, intercourse can occur with coercion, and yet they say that the fidyah is not waived in it. Good.
The second is: hunting. One is not excused for it by forgetting, nor by ignorance, nor by coercion. One is not excused for it by forgetting, nor by ignorance, nor by coercion. Why? They said: because it is destruction, and destruction is the same whether intentional or not. Is there evidence for this? No, there is a reasoning, but it is a reasoning that will be shown to be defective. So we say: Glory be to Allah, the Ruler over His servants, and between His servants, He says:
And whoever of you kills it intentionally - the penalty is an equivalent from sacrificial animals to what he killed
ومن قتله منكم متعمداً فجزاء مثل ما قتل من النعمAnd whoever of you kills it intentionally
ومن قتله منكم متعمداًOur Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأنا"And shaving and trimming" Also, trimming is not waived by forgetting, ignorance, or coercion. We must illustrate the issue of hunting regarding forgetting: a man saw game and was obsessed with hunting, so he forgot and took the rifle and shot, and as much game as Allah willed fell. According to the madhhab (school of thought), the fidyah is obligatory on him. Ignorance: a man, as we said at the beginning, stood at 'Arafah and heard that Hajj is 'Arafah. So when it was the morning of the festival, before he threw the pebbles, he found game, such as birds or gazelles or others, and hunted it. What is this? He is ignorant, and the penalty is obligatory on him. A coerced man: a servant of his master, and his master said to him, "Come, this game, go and bring it to us." He said, "I am in ihram, uncle." He said, "There is no choice; either you do it, or I will do to you what I will do." He coerced him, and he hunted. Is the penalty obligatory on him or not?
The questioner : According to the madhhab, it is obligatory on him.
The Shaykh : The penalty is obligatory on him according to the madhhab. Good. Trimming: trimming what? Trimming the nails is not waived by forgetting, nor by ignorance, nor by coercion. Brother 'Abd al-Razzaq, pay attention to this. We asked 'Abd al-Razzaq a few nights ago: a man always peels his nails with his teeth. Is the fidyah waived or not? It is not waived, even if it was forgetting, even if it was ignorance, even if it was coercion; it is not waived. Why? Do you not say that trimming the nails is forbidden for the one in ihram because it is a matter of luxury, or not? Good. Perfume and clothing are luxury. You said that there is a fidyah for them because they are luxury, or is there no text? We say: Glory be to Allah, trimming the nails is a matter of luxury, and yet you do not excuse it by ignorance, forgetting, and coercion. And clothing and perfume are a matter of luxury, and you excuse them by ignorance, forgetting, and coercion. They said: Yes, but there is a difference. The difference is that this is destruction. Trimming the nails is destruction. Destruction of what? Does it have value? And is this destruction required or prohibited outside of ihram?
The questioner : Required.
The Shaykh : Required. So it has no value, neither in the Shari'ah nor in custom, and no one collects their nails to sell them, ever. So it has no value. Where is the destruction that he mentions? And even if it is destruction, it is permissible destruction, indeed prescribed, were it not for the ihram. The same applies to the head. He said: "And shaving," it is the same, exactly the same. The cause for the obligation of the fidyah in general is that it is destruction. Destruction of what?
The questioner : Of hair.
The Shaykh : Hair has no value at all. If people wanted to benefit from hair, they have the hair of sheep and camels and others. Yes, perhaps if a person had a lot of long hair, it might have value; a woman with no hair might buy it and make it a wig. No, and yet this is not permissible. But we say it is possible that it has a price, and with this, we do not agree that it is destruction, because it is destruction that has no value. This shows the weakness of this statement. The greatest of destructions, and it is clear destruction, is: hunting. And yet Allah, the Exalted, conditioned the obligation of the penalty in it with intention, and it is the origin of destructions. So we return once more and say: the doer of the prohibited acts, in the stronger opinion, is divided into an exhaustive division, if Allah wills. The doer of all the prohibited acts does not escape from three states...