Q: From the below ibaarat it is understood that the following two things will be with tashabbuh:
1) قصد (to be مشابه)
2) ميلان
So if the any of the above is not found this will not be tashabbuh. Is this correct?
اس سے معلوم ہوا کہ اہل باطل کی طرف میلان حرام ہے اور اس کے ساتہ ایک قاعدہ ملا لیا جاۓ کہ تشبہ بدون رکون اور میلان قلبی کے نہیں ہوتا- تشبہ جب کبہی پایاجاۓ گا رکون کے ساتہ پایا جاۓگا- یعنی لازم ہے کہ اس کی طرف رکون ہو- اولا رکون ہوتا ہے پہر تشبہ ہوتاہے- قلب میں اولا اس کی عظمت ہو تی ہے اور اس کے استحسان کا درجہ پیدا ہوتاہے اور اس کی میلان ہو تا ہے۔ اس کے اثر سے تشبہ ہو تا ہے (فقہ حنفی کے اصول و ضوابط،ص149)
تشبہ بالکفار امور مذہبیہ میں تو حرام ہے اور شعار قومی میں مکروہ تحرمی ہے۔ باقی ایجادات اور اور انتظامات میں جائز ہے (فقہ حنفی کے اصول و ضوابط،ص152)
البتہ تشبہ اور مشابہت میں فرق ہے اس کو سمجہ لینا چاہۓ۔تشبہ اس کو کہتے ہیں کہ باقاعدہ قصد اور اختیار سے آدمی دوسری ملت والے کے مشابہ بننے کی کوشش کرے تاکہ میں ان جیسا نظر آؤں، یہ تو ناجائز اور حرام ہے۔ اور دوسری چیز ہے مشابہت وہ یہ ہے کہ ان جیسا بننے کا قصد اور ارادہ تو نہیں تہا لیکن اس لباس کے ذریعہ بلا قصد ان کے ساتہ مشابہت ہو گئ ۔ یہ مشابہت حرام تو نہیں ہے مکروہ تنزیہی ہے۔ اس لۓ حتی اللمکان مشابہت سے بہی بچنے کی کوشش کرنی چاہۓ- (تقریر ترمذی،ج2،ص332)
فَإِنَّ التَّشَبُّهَ بِهِمْ لَا يُكْرَهُ فِي كُلِّ شَيْءٍ، بَلْ فِي الْمَذْمُومِ وَفِيمَا يُقْصَدُ بِهِ التَّشَبُّهُ الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (1/ 624)
قَالَ هِشَامٌ: رَأَيْت عَلَى أَبِي يُوسُفَ نَعْلَيْنِ مَخْصُوفِينَ بِمَسَامِيرَ، فَقُلْت: أَتَرَى بِهَذَا الْحَدِيدِ بَأْسًا؟ قَالَ لَا قُلْت: سُفْيَانُ وَثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ كَرِهَا ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّ فِيهِ تَشَبُّهًا بِالرُّهْبَانِ؛ فَقَالَ «كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - يَلْبَسُ النِّعَالَ الَّتِي لَهَا شَعْرٌ» وَإِنَّهَا مِنْ لِبَاسِ الرُّهْبَانِ. فَقَدْ أَشَارَ إلَى أَنَّ صُورَةَ الْمُشَابَهَةِ فِيمَا تَعَلَّقَ بِهِ صَلَاحُ الْعِبَادِ لَا يَضُرُّ، فتح الباري لابن حجر (10/ 275)
وَإِنَّمَا يَصْلُحُ الِاسْتِدْلَالُ بِقِصَّةِ الْيَهُودِ فِي الْوَقْتِ الَّذِي تَكُونُ الطَّيَالِسَةُ مِنْ شِعَارِهِمْ وَقَدِ ارْتَفَعَ ذَلِكَ فِي هَذِهِ الْأَزْمِنَةِ فَصَارَ دَاخِلًا فِي عُمُوم الْمُبَاح
A: To understand the issue of tashabbuh refer to http://muftionline.co.za/node/14206
And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best.
(Scroll down for more information regarding this question)
Answered by:
Checked & Approved:
Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)
Q: I read the fatwa however from the ibaarat I sent you it still seems clear that if the any of the below is not found this will not be tashabbuh.
1) قصد (to be مشابه)
2) ميلان
Is this correct?
A: Your understanding of these ibaaraat is incorrect as you have not understood these statements in their correct context. The Shar'ee principle in regard to الأمور المباحة (permissible actions), actions which are done by both Muslims and non-Muslims is that if one does the action with the intention of emulating the kuffaar, it will be impermissible as the element of tashabbuh is found through one's intention. On the other hand, if one does the action without the intention of emulating the kuffaar, then since the action is done by both Muslims and non-Muslims, one will not be sinful. However, when a permissible action becomes the custom of the kuffaar, such as purchasing a particular type of chocolate (e.g. Easter eggs at the time of Easter), then though the action and the item purchased is of a permissible nature, however since it has become the custom of the kuffaar and is exclusive to them, purchasing the Easter egg will no longer be permissible - irrespective of whether one had the intention of emulating them or not. One's purchasing the Easter egg will be emulating them and supporting them in their kufr customs.
Subjecting tashabbuh to one's intention in all situations is certainly incorrect. If one feels that tashabbuh will only take place in the case where one has the intention of emulating the kuffaar (as is your claim), then wearing a cross (which is in itself a permissible action) should be permissible when done without the intention of emulating the kuffaar. This, however is not so. Wearing the cross is declared haraam in Islam in all cases and such an action will take one out of the fold of Islam regardless of whether or not one has the intention of emulating the Christians through wearing the cross. Hence we understand that if the action becomes the custom of the kuffaar and is exclusive to them, it will not be permissible for one to do the action. Another example of this is placing flowers in one's home with the intention of beautifying one's home. Though beautifying one's home with flowers it is totally permissible,however, beautifying one's home with marigold flowers is impermissible as this has become the custom of the Hindus and is exclusive to them.
There are many glaring examples which could further elucidate this principle. Take the example of a Christmas tree. Purchasing a decorated tree with the intention of decorating one's home is permissible. However, if one wishes to purchase a Christmas tree to decorate his home without the intention of emulating the kuffaar, it will not be permissible as this is something exclusive to the Christians. Similarly, if one wishes to decorate his home with the sign of the three with the tail at the bottom (for example he wishes to put it at the entrance of his home or on the room doors or anywhere else within his home or he wishes to decorate the walls of the Musjid with this sign), this will not be permissible, regardless of whether he does it with the intention of emulating the Hindus or not. The reason for the impermissibilty is that this sign symbolizes Hinduism and is exclusive to the Hindus. Another example of this nature mentioned in the Qur'an is that Allah Ta'ala had prohibited the Sahaabah from addressing Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) with the words راعنا which translates in the Arabic language as 'consider us'. On account of the Yahood saying these words to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), the Sahaabah also innocently began to say these words to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). The Sahaabah were inclined to using these words due to the favorable meaning it had in the Arabic language. However, when the Yahood used to address Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) with these words, they intended an evil meaning according to their language. Hence Allah Ta'ala had prohibited the Sahaabah from uttering these words before Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) even though they did not have the same intention as the Yahood. We thus understand that though the Sahaabah did not intend to emulate the Yahood by saying these words, they were still prohibited as this amounted to emulating the Yahood.
Hence, we understand from the abovementioned examples that once an action becomes the custom of the kuffaar and - exclusive to them, it will no longer be permissible for a Mu'min to carry out such an action as he will invariably be emulating them (regardless of whether he intended emulating them or not).
And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best.
Answered by:
Checked & Approved: