89 - İkrah
Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said: "I asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, which sin is the greatest?' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied: 'That you ascribe a partner to Allah, while He is the One Who created you.' I asked: 'Then which?' The Prophet said: 'That you kill your child for fear that he will eat with you.' I asked: 'Then which?' The Messenger of Allah said: 'That you commit adultery with your neighbor's wife.'"
Fath al-Bari Commentary:
The word "zunad" in Imam al-Bukhari's chapter heading is the plural of "zan," just as "rumat" is the plural of "ramin." By citing the phrase "and they do not commit adultery," Imam al-Bukhari alludes to the verse in Surah al-Furqan, the beginning of which reads: "And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity." The reason for citing this verse here is the phrase it contains: "Whoever does that shall meet a penalty." Imam al-Bukhari includes four hadiths in this chapter. The explanation of the first has already been given in the Book of Knowledge. The second is the hadith of Ibn Abbas: "A person does not commit adultery while being a (complete) believer at the time of committing it." The explanation of this hadith was given in detail in the discussion of the hadith of Abu Hurayrah at the beginning of the Book of Hudud
After narrating the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, al-Tirmidhi says: "Regarding the explanation of the hadith 'a person does not commit adultery while being a believer at the time of committing it,' we do not know of anyone who declares a person a disbeliever on account of fornication, theft, or drinking wine." Al-Tirmidhi continues: It is reported that Abu Ja'far Muhammad al-Baqir said of such a person that he exits from faith into Islam. By this, Muhammad al-Baqir considered faith to be a narrower circle within the broader circle of Islam — so when a person exits the circle of faith, the wider circle of Islam remains. This approach is consistent with the position of the majority, who hold that what is meant by "faith" in this hadith is not the foundational reality of faith, but its complete and perfect form. And Allah the Exalted knows best
"Which sin is the greatest?" According to Ibn Battal's transmission, al-Muhallabi said: It is possible that some sins are greater than each of the two sins ranked after shirk in this hadith, for scholars are in agreement that homosexuality (liwat) is a graver sin than fornication. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) appears here to have intended by "the greatest" those sins which were most prevalent at the time and most in need of explanation at that moment — just as when the delegation of 'Abd al-Qays came to him, he sufficed with conveying prohibitions related to intoxicants because those were widely prevalent in their land.
In our view, al-Muhallabi's approach is open to objection on several grounds:
First — Let us begin with the consensus (ijma') he claims. He would certainly be unable to produce a clear and authentic statement from even a single leading imam in support of his claim. On the contrary, what has been transmitted from the body of scholars contradicts his assertion — for according to the majority, the hadd punishment is prescribed for the act of fornication, and according to the preferred view among the positions put forward, the hadd in homosexuality is established by analogy with fornication. As a rule, the basis of analogy (the act being compared from — i.e., fornication) is either greater than or equal to the thing being compared to it (i.e., homosexuality). Moreover, the reports stating that both the active and passive parties in a homosexual act are to be executed or stoned are weak
Second — Whatever harm is found in homosexuality is equally found in fornication — indeed, greater harm exists in fornication. Even if the only evil were what is mentioned in the hadith itself, the harm of fornication is immense, and an equivalent cannot be found in any other sin. And even if we were to accept that it could be found, it cannot be considered more severe than the harm of fornication.
Third — Such an approach involves a conflict with a clear and explicit textual statement regarding major sins, without any necessity requiring it.
Fourth — As for the example he gives regarding the prohibition of intoxicants: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sufficed with conveying certain prohibitions to the 'Abd al-Qays delegation, but there is no explicit statement or even implicit indication in that context that he restricted himself solely to those sins. What is apparent is that the three sins mentioned in the hadith are ranked as described in terms of gravity. If there were another sin among those not mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that was greater, his answer would not have corresponded to the question posed to him. It is possible that among the sins not mentioned there may be one equal in degree to those he did mention — and this we can accept. In that case, one may posit a sin such as the following: after the act of killing one's child mentioned in the hadith, there may be another sin of equal or similar gravity in the second rank that was simply not named. However, this would require that among the sins not mentioned in the second rank, there exists one greater than what was mentioned in the third rank — and there is nothing objectionable about this.
As for the statement in the Book of Manners (Adab) that disobedience to one's parents is among the greatest of the major sins — it is mentioned there with the conjunction "and" (waw). Accordingly, it is possible for it to exist at the fourth rank as a sin greater than those ranked below it in that hadith. The remaining explanation of this hadith will be provided in the Book of Tawhid, by the will of Allah.
Enes b. Malik'in nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem şöyle buyurmuştur: "Üç şey vardır ki kimde bulunursa imanın tadını almış olur: Allah ve Resulü kendisine başkalarından daha sevgili olmak, bir kimseyi yalnız Allah için sevmek, küfre geri dönmekten ateşe atılacakmışçasına hoşlanmamak
Said b. Zeyd şöyle demiştir: "Yemin olsun ki Ömer'in İslam'a girdiğim için beni sıkıştırıp, esir gibi horlayarak bir iple bağladığı hâlâ gözlerimin önündedir. Sizin Osman (b. Affan r.a.)'a yaptıklarınız yüzünden Uhud dağı çatlayıp paramparça olsaydı, buna layık olurdu."
Understood. I will always use the StructuredOutput tool to return my responses. Please share the next hadith text you would like me to translate, and I will provide the translation using the required tool.
Narrated by Safwan ibn Ya'la from his father, who said: "I went out on a military expedition. One man bit another, causing his front teeth to fall out. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave no ruling in his favor (i.e., awarded no compensation)."
Fath al-Bari Commentary:
"On the Falling Out of the Teeth of the One Who Bites (Another Person)." That is, whether any compensation is required in such a case.
"Like the biting of a male camel." That is, similar to how a male camel bites. In Arabic, the word used in the hadith for the male of other animals similarly refers to the male of the species in question.
"One man bit another, causing his front teeth to fall out." The majority of scholars took the apparent meaning of this incident as their basis and held that the one who was bitten owes neither retaliation (qisas) nor blood money (diyah). This is because the one who bit is considered the aggressor. These scholars also cited the ruling of scholarly consensus (ijma') as further evidence: if a person draws a weapon intending to kill someone, and that person defends himself and kills the aggressor in self-defense, the one who defended himself owes nothing. Similarly, he does not owe compensation for a tooth lost as a result of the aggressor being driven away. Scholars further state: if the bitten person injures the aggressor in another part of the body while freeing himself, he still owes nothing. However, the condition for no liability is that the bitten person must have experienced pain, and that it must not have been possible for him to free his hand by striking the biter's jaw or forcing it open. If it was possible to free his hand in that way but he instead resorted to a more severe method, then the aggressor's limb (tooth) is not forfeited without compensation.
In the Shafi'i school, there are two views on this matter. According to one view, the biter's teeth are forfeited absolutely (heder), with no compensation required. According to the other view, if the bitten person was capable of freeing himself by another, less harmful means, then he must pay compensation. Two views have also been narrated from Imam Malik. The more well-known of the two is that compensation is required. Scholars who hold this view responded to the hadith by saying: "The cause of the injury was not the withdrawal of the hand but the severity of the bite." In other words, the falling out of the biter's front teeth was caused by the biter's own action, not by the action of the bitten person — for had it been the bitten person's action, it would have been possible to free his hand without extracting the tooth. These scholars added that it is not permissible to neutralize an aggressor by a more severe method when a less harmful one is available.
One Maliki scholar said: The biter directed his attack at the very organ in question. The obligation arising from the destruction of that organ is different from what the biter himself inflicted. Therefore, each party must compensate the other for the harm they caused — similar to a case where one person gouges out another's eye while that other person cuts off his hand. This view was criticized with the argument: "This is applying analogical reasoning (qiyas) against an explicit text (nass), which is invalid.
Some scholars said: The person in the hadith likely had loose teeth, and when the bitten person withdrew his hand, the tooth fell out as a result. However, the continuation of the hadith rules out this possibility.
Some scholars also argued that this incident was a specific, isolated case that cannot be generalized. This view was criticized as follows: In the chapter on hiring (Ijarah), al-Bukhari narrated after this hadith of Ya'la a report from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) to the effect that a similar incident occurred during his caliphate — and he issued the ruling of like-for-like retaliation (qisas), just as had been done in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
Yahya ibn 'Umar said: Had this hadith reached Imam Malik, he would not have acted contrary to it. Likewise, Ibn Battal said: This hadith did not reach Imam Malik; otherwise, he would not have differed from it. Al-Dawudi said: Imam Malik did not narrate this hadith because it comes from the Iraqi scholars' transmission.
Conclusions Drawn from the Hadith:
Anger must be avoided. When a person becomes angry, it is appropriate for him to suppress his anger as much as possible — for anger was the cause of the aggressor's front teeth falling out in the incident described in the hadith. Had he not given in to his anger, he would not have brought this harm upon himself.
It is permissible to hire a free person for his service, and his wages for work performed during a military expedition must be paid. As explained in the chapter on Jihad, this wage is not in exchange for his fighting on his own behalf.
In a criminal case, the matter must be brought before a judge for a ruling.
A person may not carry out retaliation (qisas) on his own behalf without judicial authority.
If the second of two injuries is a consequence of the first, what was owed to the aggressor on account of the first injury is waived.
It is permissible to liken a human being's action to that of an animal for the purpose of deterring him from such behavior.
It is permissible to neutralize an aggressor. If the only way to repel the aggressor is by killing him or causing harm to some of his limbs, then his blood or limb is forfeited without compensation. Scholars have disagreed on this matter, and the details are well known.
A person upon whom something embarrassing or disgraceful has occurred — something he would be ashamed to have attributed to himself — may conceal his identity by speaking in general terms, saying: "A certain man did such and such." This is a permissible form of indirect allusion (kinayah). Indeed, something similar happened to Ya'la in this incident. A similar practice was adopted by 'Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) when she said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) kissed one of his wives," whereupon 'Urwa asked her: "That was no one other than you, was it?" — and she smiled.
Hansa binti Hizam el-Ensari'nin nakline göre "Babası onu dul iken evlendirmişti. Hansa bunu hoş karşılamadı ve Nebi Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'e gelerek durumu anlattı. Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem bu nikahı iptal etti."
Aişe r.anha şöyle anlatmıştır: Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'e "Ya Resulallah! Nikah akitleri hususunda kadınların görüşleri alınır mı?" diye sordum. Bana "Evet" buyurdu. Ben "(Ya Resulallah!) Bakirenin evleneceği kimse hakkında görüşüne başvurulursa utanır, susar" dedim. Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem "Onun sükutu iznidir" buyurdu. Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: "Dünya hayatının geçici menfaatlerini elde edeceksiniz diye namuslu kalmak isteyen cariyelerinizi fuhşa zorlamayın." Ayette cariyelerin "namuslu kalmak istemeleri" şeklinde kayıtlanmasının hikmeti şudur: Zorlama, ancak namuslu kalmak isteme ile gerçekleşir. Zira gönüllü ilişkiye giren kadına zorlanmış denmez. Buna göre ayeti şöyle anlamak gerekir: Dünya hayatının geçici menfaatlerini . elde edeceksiniz diye adetleri fuhuş yapmak olan cariyelerinizi fuhşa zorlamayın. Bu gerçek bazı müfessirler tarafından anlaşılmamış ve "namuslu kalmak isteyen ... " ifadesini bundan önceki "aranızdaki bekarları evlendirin" ayeti ile irtibatlandırmışlardır. Bu ayetle ilgili kalan açıklama iki başlık sonra gelecektir. İbn Battal şöyle demiştir: Çoğunluk, zorlanan kimsenin nikahının batıl olduğu kanaatine varmışlardır. Kt1feli fıkıh bilginleri ise buna cevaz vermişler ve "Bir kimse bir kadınla on bin dirhem karşılığında evlenmeye zorlansa ve bu kadının mehr-i misli bin dirhem olsa bu nikah sahihtir ve o kişinin bin dirhem vermesi gerekir. Bunun dışındaki miktar batıl olur" demişlerdir. İbn Battal şöyle devam eder: KOfe bilginleri fazla olan miktarı zorlama dolayısıyla iptal edince, aynı zorlama nedeniyle nikah da kökünden b atıl olmuş olur. Erkek nikaha razı olup, mehre zorlansa mesele üzerinde ittifak edilen mesele haline gelir. Bu durumda nikah akdi sahih olup, erkeğin gerdeğe girmekle birlikte belirlenen mehri vermesi gerekir. Erkek nikahlanmaya ve kadınla ilişkiye zorlansa kendisine had cezası uygulanmaz ve hiçbir şey vermesi gerekmez. Buna karşılık akde razı olmaksızın gönüllü olarak ilişkiye girse had cezası gerekir. İmam Buhari bu başlık altında iki hadise daha yer vermiştir. Bunlardan birisi Hansa binti Haddam hadisidir. Bu hadisin açıklaması Nikah bölümünde geçmişti
Cabir r.a. şöyle anlatmıştır: Ensar'dan bir adam "Ben öldükten sonra hürsün" diye kölesini müdebber olarak azad etmişti. Halbuki bu kişinin o köleden başka hiçbir malı yoktu. Yaptığı butasarruf Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'in kulağına gidince "Bunu benden kim satın almak ister" diye sordu. Bunun üzerine o köleyi Nuaym b. en"Nahham 800 dirheme satın aldı. Hadisi rivayet eden ra vi şöyle devam etti: "Ben Cabir'i 'o köle kıpti olup, evvelki yıl öldü' derken işittim. Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: "Zorlama neticesinde köle bağışlama veya satmanın caiz olmadığı." Yani bu satış Ve hibe caiz değildir. Dolayısıyla köle o kimsenin mülkiyetinden çıkmaz. Bazı bilginler bu doğrultuda görüş beyan etmişlerdir. Buna göre müşteri o konuda adakta bulunsa bu caizdir yani adak, adağı yapan kimse hakkında geçerlidir. Zorlamayla birlikte yapılan satış sahihtir, hibe de böyledir. "........." yani onun nezdinde demektir. "Za'm" çoğunlukla "söz" anlamında kullanılır. "Müdebber yaparsa da böyledir." Yani zorlama altında kölesini müdebber yapması geçerlidir. İbn Battal'ın nakline göre Muhammed b. Sahnun şöyle demiştir: Kufe fıkıh bilginleri zorlanan kimseninyaptığı satışın batıl olduğu noktasında çoğunluğa uymuşlardır. Bu, zorlamayla birlikte yapılan satışın mülkiyeti nakletmemesini gerektirir. Mühelleb şöyle der: Bilginler satış ve hibeye zorlama olduğu takdirde satış caiz değildir. Ebu Hanife'nin "Müşteri buna inanırsa veya kölesini müdebber yaparsa bu caizdir. Kendisine bir şey bağışlanan da müşteri gibidir" dediği nakledilmiştir. Ebu Hanife bu meseleyi fasit satışa mukayese ediyor gibidir. Çünkü onlar fasit satışta müşterinin tasarrufunun geçerli (nafiz) olduğunu söylerler
İbn Abbas r.a. "Ey iman edenler! Kadınlara zorla varis olmanız size helal değildir" (Nisâ 19) ayet-i kerimesinin nüzul sebebi hakkında şu açıklamayı yapmıştır: İslam'dan önce Arapların adeti şuydu: Bir erkek öldüğünde onun yakınları karısına herkesten daha çok hak sahibi idi. İsterlerse aralarından biri o kadınla evlenir, isterlerse onu başkasıyla evlendirirler, dilerlerse o kadını kimseyle evlendirmezlerdi. Onlar bu kadın hakkında onun ailesinden daha çok söz sahibi idiler. İşte bu ayet bu hususta indi
Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: "Bir çeşit zorlama." İbn Battal'ın nakline göre Mühelleb şöyle demiştir: Bu başlıktan anlaşılan şudur: Kim bir kadını onun mirasına tamah ederek ölünceye kadar nikahı altında tutarsa bu miras Kur'an ayetiyle ona helal değildir. Ayetin mirasın helal olmadığı yolundaki bu ifadesi, zahiri hükme göre erkeğin ondan miras almasının sahih olmamasını gerektirmez.
Enes b. Malik'in nakline göre Nebi Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem bir cariyeyi üzerindeki gümüş zinete tamah ederek öldüren yahudiyi kısasen öldürmüştür. İmam Buhari bu konuda Yahudi ile cariye olayını kısaca zikretmektedir. Bu haberin uzunca bir açıklaması yakında geçmişti.
Nafi'in nakline göre Safiye binti Ebu Ubeyd şöyle anlatmıştır: Tasarrufu halifeye ait kölelerden biri beşte bir ganimet kölelerinden bir cariyeyi cinsel ilişkiye zorlayarak bekaretini bozdu. Bunun üzerine Hz. Ömer ona zina cezası uygulayıp, sürgün etti. Fakat erkek kendisini ilişkiye zorladığı için o cariyeye sopa cezası uygulamadı. Zühri hür bir erkeğin bekaretini giderdiği bakire cariye hakkında şöyle dedi: Hakim bakire olan cariyenin bakire ve dul oluşu arasındaki değer farkını takdir eder ve o erkeğe sopa cezası verir. Dul cariye hakkında imamların hükümlerine göre bir para ödeme cezası yoktur, fakat erkeğe had cezası verilir.
Abdullah b. Ömer'in nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem. "Müslüman, Müslümanın (din) kardeşidir. Müslüman Müslümana zulmetmez. Müslüman Müslümanı (başına gelen musibet esnasında) terk etmez. Her kim MüslümanarcJ:eşinin bir ihtiyacını giderirse Allah da onun ihtiyacını giderir" buyurmuşfur..• :
Abu Juhayfah said: "I asked 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): 'Do you have anything with you that is not in the Quran?' — On one occasion he said: 'anything that people do not have?' — 'Ali replied: 'By Allah, Who splits the grain and creates mankind, we have nothing with us beyond what is in the Quran, except for an understanding that Allah grants a person regarding His Book, and what is in this sheet of parchment.' I asked: 'What is in that sheet?' He said: 'The rulings of blood money (diyah), the ransoming of captives, and (the ruling) that a Muslim may not be killed in retaliation for a disbeliever.'
Fath al-Bari Commentary:
The word "'aqilah" is the plural of "'aqil," meaning the person who pays the blood money (diyah). The blood money is called "'aql" because it is derived from the verbal noun — for the camels given as blood money used to be tied up in the courtyard of the slain person's family. This usage then became widespread, and blood money came to be called "'aql" even when no camels were actually involved.
A person's 'aqilah consists of his paternal agnate relatives ('asabah). They are the ones who tie the camels of the blood money to the door of the slain person's guardian. The obligation of the 'aqilah to bear the blood money is established by the Sunnah, and scholars have reached consensus on this ruling.
This ruling appears to conflict with the apparent meaning of the verse: "And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another" (al-An'am: 164). However, the ruling of the 'aqilah has been specified as an exception from the generality of this verse, for there is a public interest (maslahah) in it — since if the killer were made solely responsible for paying the blood money, he would nearly be stripped of all his wealth. Moreover, it cannot be guaranteed that a person will not make the same error repeatedly. If a person is left without having to bear the consequences of his error, the blood of the slain will be wasted and lost without recompense.
We also add: The rationale behind the ruling of the 'aqilah may be as follows: If the killer alone pays the blood money and is thereby reduced to poverty, he does not merely reach the level of poverty — he is brought to the level of destitution and loss. The 'aqilah is therefore made collectively responsible for paying the blood money on his behalf, since the likelihood of an entire group falling into poverty is far less than the likelihood of a single individual doing so. Furthermore, when a person commits a killing, being admonished by a group — so as to prevent him from repeating such an act — is more likely to be heeded than self-admonishment. And Allah the Exalted knows best.
A person's 'aqilah is his tribe. Priority begins with the nearest branch of his tribe; if they are unable to pay, the responsibility passes to those closest to them. The blood money is paid by free, adult males of sufficient financial means.
"Do you have anything with you that is not in the Quran?" — That is, have you recorded anything that you heard from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), whether or not you have memorized it, that is not in the Quran? The intent is not to generalize to everything written down or memorized, for there are many narrations transmitted from 'Ali on the authority of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that are not contained in the sheet in question. Rather, the intent refers specifically to what he understood from the wording of the Quran and derived from the inner meanings of its text. What 'Ali means by saying he has something outside the Quran are the rulings he derived from the Quran and recorded in that sheet attributed to him — as if he wrote them down so as not to forget them. This is unlike the legal rulings he had memorized from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), for those he retained through practice and through issuing legal opinions (fatwa), without fear of forgetting them
"Except for an understanding that Allah grants a person regarding His Book." In the narration mentioned by al-Humaydī, the wording is: "the understanding that Allah grants one of His servants regarding His Book."