What is the ruling on a woman saying to a scholar, “I love you for the sake of Allah,” or a man saying it to women?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : If the statement is from a man to women, saying “I love you for the sake of Allah,” or if a woman says it to a scholar, is this permissible or not?
The Shaykh : The same answer applies.
The questioner : The same answer applies.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right. Since it concerns the speaker, and in your question the speaker is a woman, what do you mean by this question?
The questioner : From the perspective of, for example, averting fitnah (trial, discord or temptation).
The Shaykh : I am getting to the conclusion. If the one speaking is a woman, the previous question applies a fortiori: what do you mean by it? If she means something that is not prescribed, then naturally the answer is known to you and to others. If she means exactly what a man would mean, and is sincere in her love, then there is nothing wrong with it. This is regarding the speaker. The same is said regarding the one to whom it is said. We mentioned earlier that if there is a fear that the one to whom it is said will be pleased with himself or become arrogant, then a fortiori, the same applies here, as long as the one speaking to him is a woman.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, there is no fear that he will become arrogant, but there is a fear that his heart may incline toward her.
The Shaykh : Hmm, and what is the difference between your negative phrase and the affirmative phrase? There is no difference. Yes.
The questioner : Our professor, the scholars and jurists who are researchers attach many legal rulings to 'urf (custom) and the customs of people in these matters, which are not consistent and vary. How is that so?
The Shaykh : I do not believe in 'urf (custom) in the absolute sense very much. What I understand is that 'urf (custom) does not mean establishing new legal rulings, but rather there may be conventions in some terms, such as defining their meanings, and this definition varies from place to place or from country to country. I think that the jurists, or at least some of them, have addressed this specific aspect. For example, the word "meat" in its original linguistic meaning, as is clear to everyone, includes the meat of all animals, whether wild or marine. If there is a custom in a certain country where, when "meat" is mentioned, fish meat is not intended, and someone swears an oath saying, “By Allah, I will not eat meat,” then the custom governs here. It is asked: Did he eat fish meat, did he break his oath or not? We say according to the custom: if the custom of that country is that when they mention the word "meat," it means all meats, then he has broken his oath, whether he ate sea meat or land meat. Otherwise, that custom is taken into account. As for 'urf (custom) becoming contrary to some legal rulings and being given weight and proof, and applying to it His saying, the Exalted:[Al-A'raf 7:199], there is a great difference between this and that. This is what I have. In any case, if you have something else you have benefited from in your studies, we want to benefit from it as well.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : And you.
The questioner : If the custom is not consistent, for example, people's customs regarding travel differ.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : How can a legal ruling be attached to something that is not consistent? Would travel, for example, be prescribed for me but not for someone else?
The Shaykh : What is intended by general custom is the general custom in general rulings. But there are matters that concern a specific person because a cause arose for him that did not arise for people in general. For example, moving from one country to another does not concern an individual but concerns the general custom. But this person who traveled, for example, did not intend to travel, so it is not said to have a relation to custom because he did not intend to travel. Similarly, if he intended to travel from one country to another, and in the other country he has a wife, or perhaps we say his father is there, or his family is there, or so on, then he is a traveler between the two countries, and he is a resident in each of the two countries. But his companion who traveled with him may not be in that situation when he arrives in the country where he stayed. This has no relation to custom, but the ruling changed because of what arose in the mind of each of the two travelers. So I think the question you raised earlier and its answer is very clear. One looks to the general custom, meaning moving from one country to another. Even the common people who have no knowledge of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), what do they say? “We are traveling from here to Zarqa, for example,” or they do not say “we are traveling.” But a person might say, “I am traveling,” and in doing so, he does not consider the general custom and uses a term that is neither customary nor, consequently, legal. In that case, no weight is given to such a statement. So I think your question, “How does the Lawgiver attach a ruling to a custom, and the custom differs?” If you mean it differs from time to time, that is correct. But what appeared from your question is that you mean from person to person or from group to group. The answer to this is what I mentioned earlier, which is the general custom. So I do not know if there is anything else.
The questioner : That which follows the general custom of people.
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner : The general public.
The Shaykh : Yes, the general public. Yes.
The questioner : If the statement is from a man to women, saying “I love you for the sake of Allah,” or if a woman says it to a scholar, is this permissible or not?
The Shaykh : The same answer applies.
The questioner : The same answer applies.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is right. Since it concerns the speaker, and in your question the speaker is a woman, what do you mean by this question?
The questioner : From the perspective of, for example, averting fitnah (trial, discord or temptation).
The Shaykh : I am getting to the conclusion. If the one speaking is a woman, the previous question applies a fortiori: what do you mean by it? If she means something that is not prescribed, then naturally the answer is known to you and to others. If she means exactly what a man would mean, and is sincere in her love, then there is nothing wrong with it. This is regarding the speaker. The same is said regarding the one to whom it is said. We mentioned earlier that if there is a fear that the one to whom it is said will be pleased with himself or become arrogant, then a fortiori, the same applies here, as long as the one speaking to him is a woman.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, there is no fear that he will become arrogant, but there is a fear that his heart may incline toward her.
The Shaykh : Hmm, and what is the difference between your negative phrase and the affirmative phrase? There is no difference. Yes.
The questioner : Our professor, the scholars and jurists who are researchers attach many legal rulings to 'urf (custom) and the customs of people in these matters, which are not consistent and vary. How is that so?
The Shaykh : I do not believe in 'urf (custom) in the absolute sense very much. What I understand is that 'urf (custom) does not mean establishing new legal rulings, but rather there may be conventions in some terms, such as defining their meanings, and this definition varies from place to place or from country to country. I think that the jurists, or at least some of them, have addressed this specific aspect. For example, the word "meat" in its original linguistic meaning, as is clear to everyone, includes the meat of all animals, whether wild or marine. If there is a custom in a certain country where, when "meat" is mentioned, fish meat is not intended, and someone swears an oath saying, “By Allah, I will not eat meat,” then the custom governs here. It is asked: Did he eat fish meat, did he break his oath or not? We say according to the custom: if the custom of that country is that when they mention the word "meat," it means all meats, then he has broken his oath, whether he ate sea meat or land meat. Otherwise, that custom is taken into account. As for 'urf (custom) becoming contrary to some legal rulings and being given weight and proof, and applying to it His saying, the Exalted:
enjoin what is good, and turn away from the ignorant.
وَأْمُرْ بِالْعُرْفِ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْجَاهِلِينَThe questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : And you.
The questioner : If the custom is not consistent, for example, people's customs regarding travel differ.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : How can a legal ruling be attached to something that is not consistent? Would travel, for example, be prescribed for me but not for someone else?
The Shaykh : What is intended by general custom is the general custom in general rulings. But there are matters that concern a specific person because a cause arose for him that did not arise for people in general. For example, moving from one country to another does not concern an individual but concerns the general custom. But this person who traveled, for example, did not intend to travel, so it is not said to have a relation to custom because he did not intend to travel. Similarly, if he intended to travel from one country to another, and in the other country he has a wife, or perhaps we say his father is there, or his family is there, or so on, then he is a traveler between the two countries, and he is a resident in each of the two countries. But his companion who traveled with him may not be in that situation when he arrives in the country where he stayed. This has no relation to custom, but the ruling changed because of what arose in the mind of each of the two travelers. So I think the question you raised earlier and its answer is very clear. One looks to the general custom, meaning moving from one country to another. Even the common people who have no knowledge of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), what do they say? “We are traveling from here to Zarqa, for example,” or they do not say “we are traveling.” But a person might say, “I am traveling,” and in doing so, he does not consider the general custom and uses a term that is neither customary nor, consequently, legal. In that case, no weight is given to such a statement. So I think your question, “How does the Lawgiver attach a ruling to a custom, and the custom differs?” If you mean it differs from time to time, that is correct. But what appeared from your question is that you mean from person to person or from group to group. The answer to this is what I mentioned earlier, which is the general custom. So I do not know if there is anything else.
The questioner : That which follows the general custom of people.
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner : The general public.
The Shaykh : Yes, the general public. Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.