90 - Hîle

Narrated from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah that Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "During his illness, we put medicine in the mouth of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. He began signaling to us: 'Do not put medicine in my mouth.' We said: 'He dislikes the medicine, that is why he says this.' When the Prophet recovered his senses, he rebuked us saying: 'Did I not forbid you from putting medicine in my mouth?' We again said: 'A sick person dislikes medicine.' The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, then said: 'There shall not remain a single person among you — right before my eyes — who has not had medicine poured into their mouth, except for Abbas, for he was not present with you.'"

Narrated from Alqama ibn Waqqas, from Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "O people! Actions are only by intentions, and every person shall have only what they intended. Whoever emigrated for the sake of Allah and His Messenger, then his emigration is for Allah and His Messenger. And whoever emigrated for worldly gain or to marry a woman, his emigration is for whatever he emigrated for."

Enes b. Malik r.a.'in nakline göre Ebu Bekir r.a., Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'in takdir buyurduğu zekat miktarlarına dair Enes b. Malik'e bir mektup yazdı. Bu mektupta zekat (artar) korkusuyla dağınık olan zekat malı biraraya toplanmaz, toplu bulunanlar da dağıtılmaz diyordu

Birileri (Ebu Hanıfe) şöyle demiştir: 120 devede üç yaşına basmış iki deve zekat vardır. Eğer develerin sahibi bilerek bu 120 deveyi yok eder yahut hibe eder veyahut zekattan kaçmak için bir hile yaparsa artık ona hiçbir zekat yoktur

Ebu Hureyre r.a.'in nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem şöyle buyurdu: "(Zekatı verilmeden saklanmış) servetiniz, kıyamet gününde başı kel zehirli bir yılan olur; sahibi ondan kaçar, o da sahibinin peşine düşer ve 'Ben senin dünyadaki servetinim!' der durur. Vallahi o yılan sahibinin peşinden ayrılmaz; nihayet o kişi elini uzatır ve yılan onu ağzına tıkıştırır." Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem şöyle daha buyurdu: "Deve sürüsünün sahibi zekatını vermezse, kıyamet günü o develer üzerine musallat edilir ve ayak tabanlarıyla yüzüne çarpar." Bazı kimseler şöyle demiştir: Develeri olan bir kişi zekat vermek zorunda kalmaktan korkarak yıl dolmadan bir gün önce hileli bir şekilde develerini benzerleriyle, koyunla, sığırla ya da dirhemleriyle takas ederse, ona bir şey lazım gelmez. Aynı kişiler şunu da söylemektedir: Bir kimse develerinin zekatını yıl dolmadan bir gün ya da bir yıl önce öderse, bu zekat yükümlülüğünü karşılar.

İbn Abbas şöyle demiştir: Sa'd b. Ubade el-Ensari anası üzerinde bir adak borcu olduğunu ve bu adağını yerine getiremeden vefat ettiğini ifade edip, Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve SellemIden bunun fetvasını istedi. Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem de ona: ''Anan adına o adağı yerine getir" buyurdu

Abdullah b. Ömer, Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem şiğar niktıhını yasakladı deyince, hadisi nakleden Ubeydullah el-UmerlNafl'e "Şiğar nedir?" diye sorar. O da "Biri diğerinin kızını niktıhlar, diğeri de ona kendi kızını mehirsiz olarak niktıhlar ve yine biri diğerinin kızkardeşini niktıhlar ve ona da kendi kızkardeşini mehirsiz olarak niktıhlar" dedi

el-Hasen ve Abdullah b. Muhammed b. Ali'nin nakillerine göre babaları Hz. Ali'ye "İbn Abbas kadınların mut'a nikahıyla nikah edilmesinde bir sakınca görmüyor" diye söylenir. Bunun üzerine Hz. Ali: "Şüphesiz Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem Hayber günü mut'a suretiyle nikah yapmayı ve ehli eşek etini yemeyi yasakladı" demiştir

Ebu Hureyre r.a.'in nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem şöyle buyurmuştur: "Su fazlası engellenemez, çünkü neticede (mubah olan) ot fazlası (hayvan sahiplerinden) men edilmiş olur" buyurmuştur. Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: 'Alışverişlerde mekruh olan hile ve fazla otu engellemek amacıyla su fazlasının engellenmemesi." Mühelleb şöyle demiştir: Atılan başlıktan maksat şudur: Bir kimsenin kuyusu olup, çevresinde herkese açık bir otlak bulunmaktadır. Kuyu sahibi ise bu otun sırf kendisine ait olmasını istemektedir. Bu maksatla kuyusundaki su fazlasını -hiç ihtiyacı olmadığı halde- başkalarının hayvanlarının gelip içmesine engel olmaktadır. Onun asıl ihtiyacı kuyunun etrafında bulunan otlaradır. Ancak bu otlar kimsenin mülkü dahilinde olmadığı için onu engelleyememektedir. Dolayısıyla suya engelolmakta ve böylece bolota sahip olmaktadır. Çünkü hayvanlar susuz yapamaz, tam tersine otladığında susar. Başka kuyunun suyu ise hayvanlarından uzaktadır. Sürünün sahibinin ise bu otlarda gözü yoktur. Netice olarak kuyu sahibi böyle bir hileye başvurarak o otlara sahip olur. Hadisin manası şudur: Su fazlası hiçbir şekilde engellenemez. Çünkü su başka bir sebepten engellenemediğine göre bizatihi kendisi sebebiyle evleviyetle engellenemez. Suyun "fazla" şeklinde nitelenmesi, suyun ihtiyacından fazla olmaması durumunda onu başkasına vermemesinin caiz olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Doğruyu en iyi Allahu Teala bilir. İbnü'l-Müneyyir şöyle demiştir: Buharl'nin attığı başlığın hadise hangi açıdan uyduğuna gelince, çöllerde açılmış kuyuların sahipleri fazla olan miktar dışındaki suyu kendilerine ayırabilirler. Herkesin yararlanma hakkı olan ot ise böyle değildir. O kimsenin özel mülkü olamaz. Kuyu sahibi hIleye başvurup, kuyunun yakınındaki otları çoğaltmak maksadıyla ihtiyaç fazlası su olmadığını iddia edecek olursa, hayvan sahibi bu takdirde hayvanlarını başka bir suya götürmek zorunda kalacaktır. Çünkü hayvanlar susuz kaldıkları takdirde otlayamazlar. İşte bu durumda kuyu sahibi yasaklık kapsamına girmiş olur

İbn Ömer r.a.'in nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem neceşi (hlleli arttırmayı) yasaklamıştır. Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: "Mekruh olan neceş (hileli arttırma)" İmam Buhari bununla "Resulullah s.a.v. neceşi yasaklamıştır" lafzıyla rivayet edilen hadisin bazı rivayet yollarında Ebu. Hureyre'den "Neceş yapmayınız" şeklindeki rivayete işaret etmektedir. Bu hadisin geniş bir açıklaması Büyu' bölümünde geçmişti. Başlıkta yer alan "mekruhluk"tan maksat tahrimen mekruhluktur

Narrated from Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that a man complained to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that he was being deceived in his transactions. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: "When you wish to buy something, say: 'There is to be no deception (la khilabah)!'"

Fath al-Bari Commentary:

Ayyub mentioned in the chain of narrators of this hadith is Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani.

"They attempt to deceive Allah just as they attempt to deceive a human being. If they were to do this openly, it would be easier for me to bear," he said.

Al-Kirmani says: "What Ayyub meant is: If they were to take more than the price openly and without deception, that would be easier for me to accept. For religion has not been brought as a tool to deceive others." Based on this, those who take the path of deceiving and cheating people and commit sin in this manner have become more reprehensible in the eyes of people than those who do it openly, and they have become more worthless in people's hearts, and people have felt far greater aversion toward such individuals.

The hadith narrated by Ibn Umar — "When you wish to buy something, say: 'There is to be no deception!'" — was explained in detail in the chapter on Transactions (Buyu').

Al-Muhalllab says: "The meaning of 'there is to be no deception' is: Do not deceive me, for it is not permissible." We add: It appears that this expression has the force of a condition — meaning that if deception is found to have occurred in a concluded transaction, that transaction is not valid. In other words, the person is in effect saying: "I am buying on the condition that there be no deception in this transaction," or: "Your deception does not bind me.

Al-Muhalllab further says: "Praising and extensively extolling the merits of a product does not fall under the category of forbidden deception (khilabah), for this is pardoned. A transaction concluded in this manner is not thereby invalidated."

Ibn al-Qayyim says in his work I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in: "Some later scholars (muta'akhkhirun) have invented certain legal stratagems (hiyal) that no imam has authentically validated. Whoever knows the life and scholarly standing of Imam al-Shafi'i — who assessed contracts according to their outward form and did not look to the intention of the contracting party when the intention differed from the words used — will know that he never commanded the use of stratagems designed to deceive others. He is a scholar who was far from granting people permission to deceive and trick one another. For there is a very clear distinction between assessing a contract according to its outward appearance while disregarding the person's actual intent, and granting validity to a contract that is known — with full awareness that the inner reality contradicts the outer form — to have been built upon deception and trickery. Whoever attributes to Imam al-Shafi'i the permissibility of the latter will stand as his adversary before Allah

What Imam al-Shafi'i did permit are matters such as the example of a judge who rules on the basis of the outward (apparent) uprightness of witnesses — the judge rules according to their outward appearance of probity even if the witnesses are, in reality, liars. The case of bay' al-'inah (a sale-and-repurchase transaction) is also of this nature: Imam al-Shafi'i permitted a person to sell back to the original seller the goods he had purchased — in accordance with the principle that Muslim contracts are free from deception and trickery. He never permitted buyers and sellers to agree on giving one thousand and taking back one thousand two hundred, and then insert a commodity in the middle to conceal the interest (riba). He especially never permitted this in cases where the seller had no intention of selling that commodity and the buyer had no intention of buying it. This position is further confirmed by his ruling in cases where the commodity in the middle is made to appear as though it belongs to the seller — for example, when a commodity belonging to someone else is in the seller's possession and the seller concludes the contract on the basis of that commodity, claiming it as his own property, and the buyer confirms this, so that the buyer and seller agree on a higher price, and then the seller buys it back at a lower price, with the result that the buyer is apparently indebted for a larger sum. Anyone who holds this view, if made aware of this situation, would immediately object to such a transaction. For the necessary consequence of an opinion (lazim al-qawl) is not an independent new opinion. A scholar may say something without considering where that statement necessarily leads (its logical consequence), and would object upon learning of it.

The Shafi'is grant validity to contracts according to their outward form, but at the same time state that a person who acts through deception and trickery is internally (batiniyyan) sinful. With this clarification, it becomes possible to move beyond the problem arising from this matter. Allah the Exalted knows best."

Urve b. ZUbeyr, Hz. Aişe r.anha'ye "Eğer yetimlerin haklarına riayet edememekten korkarsanız beğendiğiniz kadınlardan ikişer, üçer, dörder alın"(Nisa 3) ayet-i kerimesini sorunca Aişe r.anha şöyle cevap verir: Burada sözü edilen yetim kız, hamisinin himayesinde bulunur. Hamisi onun malı ve güzelliğine rağbet eder ve ona emsalinin mehrinin en azını vermek suretiyle kendisiyle evlenmek ister. İşte bu ayetlerde o gibi velilerin velayetleri altındaki yetim kızların mehirlerini tamamlamak suretiyle kendilerine adaletle davranmadıkça nikah etmeleri yasaklanmıştı. Sonra insanlar Nebi Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'e gelerek bu konuda fetva istediler. Bunun üzerine Allahu Teala "Senden kadınlar hakkında fetva istiyorlar"(Nisa 127) ayet-i kerimesini indirdi. Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: "Velinin bizzat kendisinin evlenmek istediği yetim kız hakkında hile yapmasının ve o kızın mehrini tam olarak vermemesinin yasak olması." İmam Buhari bu konuda Aişe r.anha hadisine yer vermiştir. İbn Battal şöyle der: Ayete göre bir velinin yetim bir kızla mehrinden daha azını vermek suretiyle veya mehr-i misli değerine yetmeyecek bir mal vererek kendisi ile evlenmesi caiz değildir. Bu ayetin nüzul sebebi hakkında ihtilaf edilmiştir. Nitekim bu hususa sözkonusu hadisin Nisa suresinin tefsiri bölümünde açıklaması yapılırken değinilmişti. Ayetteki '..........." ifadesinde bir hazf vardır. Takdiri ........= yetim kızların nikahı hususunda" demektir. ".........." yani yetim kızlar dışında beğendiğiniz kadınlar demektir. Kadı Ebu Bekir b. et-Tayyib şöyle der: Ayetin manası şöyledir: Haklarını talep edecek velileri bulunmayan yetim kızların haklarına riayet edememekten korkarsanız, haklarını arama güçleri olmadığı için onları ifa edemeyeceğinizden emin değilseniz, işlerini çekip çevirmeye gücü yeten ya da kendilerine haksızlık etmenize engelolacak velileri bulunan kadınlarla evleniniz

Abdullah b. Ömer'in nakline göre ResuIullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem Ahdini bozan herkes için kıyamet gününde kendisinin tanınacağı bir sancak vardır" buyurmuştur. Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: "Bir kimse bir başkasının eariyesini gasb etse ve onun elinde iken öIdüğünü iddia etse ... " Bu başlıkta yer aIan "" hüküm verildi anIamınadır. "ÖImüş cariyenin kıymetini ödemesine hükümverilse, sonra cariyenin sahibi onu buIsa ... " yani sahibi cariyenin öImediğini haber aIsa bu cariye, elinden gasb edilerek alınan sahibine aittir. Sahibi onun kıymetini gasıba öder. "Bu kıymet bir fiyat (semen) değildir." Çünkü araIarında alışveriş akdi cereyan etmemiştir. O bu kıymeti eariyenin eIde mevcut oImadığına binaen aImıştır. BöyIe bir durum ortadan kaIktığına göre asIa dönmek gerekir. "Ancak böyIe bir hüküm, bir kişinin satmak istemediği cariyesini arzu eden kimseye hile kapısı açar." Buradaki "i" "gerekçe gösterdi" demektir. Cari ye dışında yiyecek maddeIeri ve başka şeyIeri gasb edip, sonra bozuIduğunu iddia etme durumunda da hüküm böyIedir. Aynı şekilde eti yenen bir hayvanı gasb edip, sonra kesen kimse hakkında da aynı hükümIer geçerlidir. "Ahdini bozan her kişi için kıyamet gününde kendisinin tanznacağı bir sancak vardır." Bu hadisin geniş bir açıkIaması Cihad böIümünde geçmişti. Hadisin bu konuda hangi yönden delil oIduğu açıktır. Çünkü gasıbın cariyenin öIdüğünü iddia etmesi, MüsIüman din kardeşi hakkında hıyanet ve ahde vefasızlıktır. İbn BattaI şöyIe demiştir: İmam Ebu Hanıfe bu konuda çoğunIuğa muhalif kaImıştır. Onun düşünce tarzı şöyIedir: Bir şeyin hem kendisi ve hem de bedeli aynı anda aynı kişinin mülkiyetinde birlikte bulunamaz. Çoğunluğun bakış açısı ise şöyledir: Bir Müslümanın malı gönül rızası olmadıkça helal değildir. Kıymetin vacip olması, gasıbın cariyenin öldüğü iddiasında doğru söylediğine binaendir. Cariyenin ölmediği ortaya çıktığına göre o gasbedilen mal, sahibinin mülkiyetinde kalır. Zira gasıbla cariye sahibi arasında sahih ve geçerli bir akit yapılmamıştır. Dolayısıyla cariyenin sahibine geri iade edilmesi gerekir. 10. HAKİMİN VERDİĞİ HÜKMÜN DEĞERİ

Ümmü Seleme'nin nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem şöyle buyurmuştur: "Şüphesiz ben ancak sizin gibi bir insanım. Sizler bana davalarınızı getiriyorsunuz. Olabilir ki içinizden biriniz delilini diğerinden daha açık ve düzgün ifade etmiş olur. Ben de işitmekte olduğum delil üzerine onun lehine hükmederim. Kimin lehine kardeşinin hakkından bir şeye hükmedersem o kimse bunu almasın. Çünkü ben ona ancak ateşten bir parça kesmişimdir." Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: İbn Battal bundan önceki başlığa bu Ümmü Seleme hadisini ilave etmiştir. Hadisin bu bölümle olan ilişkisi açıktır. Çünkü hadis, hakimin verdiği hükmün Allah ve Resulünün haram kıldığı bir şeyi helal yapmadığını ifade etmektedir ve Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem, lehine hüküm verilen kimse esasen bu hakkın borçlu olduğu kimseye ait olduğunu bildiği takdirde bunu almasını yasak etmektedir. Bu hadisin geniş bir açıklaması Ahkam bölümünde inşallah gelecektir. "Şüphesiz ben ancak sizin gibi bir insanım..." Yani gaybı bilmeme noktasında herhangi bir kimse gibiyim.

Ebu Hureyre r.a.'in nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem şöyle buyurmuştur: "Bakire bir kız izni alınmadıkça nikahlanamaz, dul kadın ise açıktan görüşü alınmadıkça nikahlanamaz." Bunun üzerine: "Ey Allah'ın Rasulü, onun izninin ne olduğunu bize bildirir misiniz?" diye soruldu. Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem: "Sükut etmesidir" buyurdu. Bazı kimseler ise şöyle demiştir: Eğer bakire kızdan izin alınmadan evlendirilmezse, o zaman bir adam hileye başvurarak onun rızasıyla kendisiyle evlendiğine dair iki sahte tanık hazırlar. Kadı da bu nikahı geçerli sayar. Halbuki koca şahadetinin batıl olduğunu bilmektedir. Bu durumda o kadınla birlikte olmasında bir sakınca yoktur ve bu nikah geçerli bir nikah sayılır.

el-Kasım'ın nakline göre Cafer'in soyundan olan bir kadın, velisinin kendisini razı olmadığı halde evlendireceğinden korktu da Ensardan iki şeyhe — Yezid b. Cariye'nin iki oğlu Abdurrahman ile Mücemma' adındaki iki şeyhe — haberci gönderip sordu. Bu iki şeyh de "Sakın korkma! Çünkü Ensardan Hansa bnt. Hizam'ı babası, kadın razı olmadığı halde evlendirmişti; Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem (Hansa'nın müracaatı üzerine) bu nikahı reddetmişti" dediler.

Ebu Hureyre r.a. şöyle demiştir: Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem "Dul kadın kendisinin açıkça izni alınmadıkça nikah olunamaz. Bakire kız da kendisinden izni alınmadıkça nikah olunamaz" buyurmuştur. Orada bulunanlar "(Ya Resulallah!) Bakire bir kızın izni nasıl olur?" diye sordular. Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem "Onun izni sükut etmesidir" buyurdu. Bazı kimseler ise şöyle demiştir: Eğer bir kişi, daha önce evlenmiş bir kadınla — onun rızasıyla — evlenmek için iki yalancı şahitle hileye başvurur ve kadı da bu nikahı geçerli sayarsa, kocanın ise o kadınla hiç evlenmediğini bilmesine rağmen, bu nikah ona caiz olup o kadınla birlikte yaşamasında bir sakınca yoktur.

Aişe r.anha'nın nakline göre Rasûlullah (sallallahu aleyhi ve sellem) şöyle buyurmuştur: "Bakire kızdan izni istenir." Ben "(Ya Rasûlallah!) Bakire kız utanır!" dedim. Rasûlullah (sallallahu aleyhi ve sellem): "Onun izni susmasıdır" buyurdu.

Bazı âlimler ise şöyle demiştir: Bir adam yetim ya da bekâr bir kıza gönlünü kaptırır, kız reddederse, adam hile yaparak onunla evlendiğine dair iki yalancı şahit getirir; kız büyüyüp erginleşince bu duruma razı olur, kadı da yalan şahitliği kabul ederse ve koca bunun bâtıl olduğunu bildiği hâlde bu durumun geçerli sayılacağını ileri sürürse, bu durumda ona cima helal olur (diyenler var ki bu görüş batıldır).

Narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to supplicate in his prayer: "O Allah, deliver 'Ayyash ibn Abi Rabi'ah, Salamah ibn Hisham, and al-Walid ibn al-Walid! O Allah, deliver the weak and oppressed believers who cannot find a way out from under the oppression of the disbelievers! O Allah, crush Mudar, grind them to dust, and send upon them the years of famine like those of Joseph.

Fath al-Bari Commentary:

"Threat and coercion." Coercion (ikrah) means compelling another to do something against his will. Ikrah has four conditions:

First — The one applying the coercion must have the ability to carry out the threat, while the one threatened must be unable to repel it, even by fleeing.

Second — The one threatened must have a strong suspicion that the coercing party will carry out his threat if the demanded act is not performed.

Third — The threat must be immediate and present. If the threatening party says "If you do not comply, I will beat you tomorrow," this does not constitute valid coercion. However, if he specifies a very short time frame, or if it is his known custom not to retract his threats, then valid coercion is established.

Fourth — The person threatened must not display any behavior indicating that he performed the act willingly.

According to the majority of scholars, there is no distinction between a threat made verbally and one carried out by action. An exception is made for acts that are eternally forbidden regardless of duress — such as killing an innocent person unjustly.

Scholars have differed on whether the coerced person remains legally accountable (mukallaf) for the act he is compelled to perform. Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi said: Scholars have reached consensus that a person compelled to kill another is obligated to refrain and defend himself, and will be sinful if he carries out the killing. This shows that the coerced person remains accountable in such a situation. The same is found in the statements of Imam al-Ghazali and others.

The necessary conclusion of the scholars' explanations is that the disagreement is confined to situations where the factor of coercion and the call of the Shari'ah are compatible — as in the case of being compelled to kill a disbeliever or to embrace Islam. By contrast, when the factor of coercion conflicts with the call of the Shari'ah — as in the case of being compelled to kill a Muslim — there is no disagreement that the person is obligated not to commit the act. The disagreement concerns whether the person is accountable in cases of compulsion to absolute extremity (ikrah al-mulji') — that is, situations in which the coerced person has no alternative but to comply

Scholars have also differed on what constitutes a valid threat. Threats of death, amputation of a limb, severe beating, and prolonged imprisonment are unanimously accepted as valid. However, there is disagreement on whether a threat of mild beating or imprisonment for one or two days is sufficient.

"While his heart is at rest in faith." This is an extremely severe warning for one who renounces his faith of his own free will. By contrast, the one who does so under compulsion is excused according to the ruling of the verse, for an exception from an affirmative ruling implies a negative meaning — meaning that one compelled to utter words of disbelief should not fall under the threat expressed in the verse.

As is well known, the verse in question was revealed concerning 'Ammar ibn Yasir. Abu 'Ubaydah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Ammar ibn Yasir said: "The polytheists seized 'Ammar and tortured him until he complied with some of what they wanted. When 'Ammar complained to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) of what he had done, the Prophet asked: 'How do you find your heart?' He replied: 'Full of faith.' The Prophet said: 'If they do the same to you again, do the same.'" This report is mursal with trustworthy narrators and was transmitted by al-Tabari

"Except for those who are compelled out of fear of harm from the disbelievers." The word "illā" in the verse means taqiyyah — that is, if you fear them, do what they demand. Imam al-Bukhari derived this explanation from the words of Abu 'Ubaydah, who said that tuqat and taqiyyah carry the same meaning. We add: This word was discussed in the tafsir of Surah Al 'Imran. As for the meaning of the verse: a believer must not take a disbeliever as an ally, outwardly or inwardly — except when he outwardly fears him, in which case he may display outward alliance while harboring enmity inwardly

"And it is evident that Allah excuses the helpless who cannot avoid doing what He has commanded them to abandon." That is, they are excused when they are overpowered. The coerced person is none other than a helpless and incapable individual who cannot avoid doing what is demanded of him, while the one threatening him has the power to carry out the threat. Just as the coerced person cannot refuse the demanded act, the helpless (mustad'af) are likewise in the same ruling as the coerced (mukreh).

"Al-Hasan al-Basri said: The 'protection' (taqiyyah) mentioned in the verse applies until the Day of Resurrection." According to the transmissions of 'Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Hasan al-Basri said: "Taqiyyah is permissible for a believer until the Day of Resurrection — except that there is no taqiyyah in killing" (Ibn Abi Shaybah, Musannaf, VI, 474). The narration of 'Abd ibn Humayd reads: "Except in the taking of a life that Allah has forbidden." That is, one compelled to kill another is not excused, for he has preferred his own life over the other's.

We add: The meaning of taqiyyah is that a person conceals his inner belief and other matters from others without revealing them. According to al-Bayhaqi's transmission, Ibn Abbas said: "Taqiyyah is done with the tongue while the heart remains full of faith, and a person does not stretch out his hand to kill anyone.

"Ibn Abbas held that no weight is to be given to a man who divorces his wife under the coercion of highway robbers. Ibn 'Umar, Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Sha'bi, and al-Hasan al-Basri held the same view." According to a narration of 'Abd al-Razzaq with a sound chain of transmission from 'Ikrimah, Ibn Abbas did not consider a divorce made under duress to be valid.

Ibn Battal, following Ibn al-Mundhir, said: The scholars have reached consensus that a person compelled to utter words of disbelief under threat of death, who does so while his heart remains full of faith, cannot be ruled a disbeliever and his wife does not become separated from him. However, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: If such a person openly manifests disbelief — even if he is a Muslim inwardly — he becomes an apostate and his wife is separated from him. Ibn Battal remarked that this statement contradicts the textual evidences and does not merit a detailed response

Some scholars say: The scope of this concession (rukhsah) is limited to verbal statements. In matters involving actions — such as prostrating to an idol, killing a Muslim, eating pork, or committing fornication — the concession does not apply. This is the position of al-Awza'i and Sahnun. According to a narration of Isma'il al-Qadi with a sound chain of transmission, al-Hasan al-Basri held that taqiyyah does not apply in the taking of a life that is inviolable.

A group of scholars held that coerced speech and coerced action are equivalent. Scholars have differed on the definition of valid coercion. According to a narration of 'Abd ibn Humayd with a sound chain, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said: "A person is under coercion when he is imprisoned, bound, or subjected to torture while fearing for his life." A similar but more detailed narration is reported from Qadi Shurayh: "There are four things by which coercion is established: imprisonment, beating, threatening, and binding." Ibn Mas'ud said: "If any statement spares me two lashes, I will say it." This is the position of the majority of scholars. The scholars of Kufa hold that the matter requires further specification

Scholars have also differed regarding divorce pronounced under duress. The majority hold that such a divorce is not valid. Ibn Battal reports that this represents the consensus of the Companions. The scholars of Kufa, however, hold that such a divorce is valid. A similar view is reported from al-Zuhri, Qatadah, and Abu Qilabah.

"The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'Actions are judged by intentions.'" The detailed explanation of this hadith was given in the commentary on the first hadith of the Sahih.

Abdullah b. Amir b. Rebi'a'nın nakline göre Hz. Ömer Şam'a doğru yola çıktı. Şam yakınındaki Serğ mevkiine ulaştığında kendisine Şam'da veba hastalığı çıktığı haberi ulaştı. (Hz. Ömer yanında bulunan bazı sahabilerin muvafakatını aldıktan sonra geriye dönmeye karar verdi.) Bu sırada Abdurrahman b. Avf kendisine Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'in şöyle buyurduğunu haber verdi: "Bu hastalığın herhangi bir yerde çıktığını işittiğiniz zaman artık oraya gitmeyiniz! Hastalık sizin bulunduğunuz yerde baş gösterirse ondan kaçmak için sakın o yerden çıkmayınız. " Bunun üzerine Hz. Ömer Serğ' den geri döndü. İbn Şihab'ın Salim b. Abdullah'tan nakline göre Hz. Ömer ancak bu Abdurrahman hadisinden dolayı geri dönmüştür

Amir b. Sa'd b. Ebi Vakkas'ın nakline göre Usame b. Zeyd şöyle demiştir: Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem bu hastalıktan söz etti de "Bu bir ricz -veya azap-dır ki bununla Allahu Teala bazı milletleri azaplandırmıştır. Sonra onların ardından bunlardan bir bakiyye kalmıştır. Bu hastalık bir defa gider, diğer bir defa gelir. Her kim bir yerde bu hastalığın çıktığını işitirse, sakın oraya gitmesin. Kim de bu hastalığın bulunduğu bir yerde bulunursa artık hastalıktan kaçmak için oradan çıkmasın" buyurdu. Fethu'l-Bari Açıklaması: "Vebadan kaçma hususunda hile yapmanın mekruh olduğu." İmam Buhari bu konuda Abdullah b. Amir ve Salim b. Abdullah b. Ömer hadisi ile Amir b. Sa'd b. Ebi Vakkas hadislerine yer vermiştir. Bütün bu hadisler Tıp bölümünde açıklamalarıyla birlikte geçmişti. Mühelleb şöyle demiştir: Veba hastalığından kaçma konusundaki hlle, hastalıktan kaçmaya niyet ettiği halde mesela ticaret veya ziyaret maksadıyla çıkmak suretiyle olur demiştir. İbnü'l-Bakıllani, Hz. Ömer olayını sahabilerin haber-i vahidi kıyasa tercih ettiklerine delil göstermiştir. Çünkü onlar Medine'den Şam'a yolculuk meşakkatine katlandıktan sonra Abdurrahman b. Avf'ın tek başına verdiği habere dayanarak geri dönme konusunda ittifak etmişler ve Şam'a girmemişlerdir

İbn Abbas'ın nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem "Hibesinden geri dönen kişi kusmuğuna dönen köpek gibidir. Bizim böyle kötü bir sıfatımız olamaz" buyurmuştur.

Birileri (HaneflIer) "Şuf'a komşuluktan doğar" demjş, sonra koyduğu bu kaideye yönelerek onu iptal edip şöyle demiştir: Bir kimse bir ev satın alsa ve komşunun aynı evi şuf'a nedeniyle alacağından korksa önce evinyüzde birini satın alır, sonra da kalanını satın alır. Bu durumda o komşu sadeceyüzde birlik hissede şuf'a hakkına sahip olur. Evin kalan hisselerinde şuf'a hakkı yoktur. Evi satın alan kimse bu konuda böyle bir hileye baş vurabilir

Amr b. eş-Şerid şöyle anlatmıştır: Bir gün Misver b. Mahreme geldi ve elini benim omuzum üzerine koydu. Ben de onunla birlikte Sa'd b. Ebi Vakkas'a gittim. Ebu Rafi, Misver'e "Şu Sa'd b. Ebi Vakkas'a bahçeli konağımda bulunan (dar) evimi (beyt) benden satın almasını söyler misin?" dedi. Bunun üzerine Sa'd "Ben dört yüz dirhemden daha fazla veremem. Bu da ya parça parça ya da taksit taksit olabilir" dedi. Ebu Rafi "Bana beş yüz dinar nakit verildi de ben kabul etmedim. Ben Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'den "Komşu komşuya en öncelikli şefidir" buyururken işitmemiş olsaydım, bu evi sana satmazdım -yahut bu evi sana vermezdim- dedi. Süfyan b. Uyeyne'ye "Ma'mer bu hadisi böyle nakletmedi" dedim. Süfyan "İbrahim b. Meysera bana böyle söyledi" dedi. Bazıları (HaneflIer) şöyle demiştir: Satıcı şuf'a'ya engelolmak istediğinde onu iptal etmek için hile yapma hakkı vardır. Satıcı evi müşteriye hibe eder ve hududun u belirtir, evi müşteriye devreder. Müşteri de ona mesela bin dirhem bedel verir. Böylece şefii için evde bir şuf'a hakkı kalmaz

Ebu Rafi şöyle anlatmıştır: Sa'd b. Ebi Vakkas bir evi kendisiyle dört yüz miskale pazarlık edince o şöyle dedi: Eğer ben Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem'den "Komşu komşuya en öncelikli şefidir" buyururken işitmiş olmasaydım bu evi sana (bu fiyata) vermezdim dedi

Ebu Humeyd es-Saidi şöyle anlatmıştır: Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem İbnü'l-Utbiyye isimli birisini Süleym oğullarının zekatlarını toplamaya memur etti. Bu adam vazifesini yapıp geldiğinde Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem onu hesaba çekti. Bu zat "(Ya Resulallah!) Şu sizin zekat malınızdır, bu da (bana verilen) hediyedir" dedi. Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem "Sen doğruyu söyleyen bir kişi isen babanın, ananın evinde otursaydın sana hediyen gelir miydi?" buyurdu. Sonra Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem bize bir konuşma yaptı. Konuşmasına Allah'a hamdederek, onu güzel sıfatlarla överek başladı. "İmdi" dedikten sonra şöyle buyurdu: "İçinizden birisini Allah'ın bana havale buyurduğu bir işe memur olarak tayin ediyorum da o bana gelip hesap verirken 'Şu sizin zekat malınızdır, bu da (bana verilen) hediyedir!' diyor! Bu adam babasının, anasının evinde otursaydı kendisine hediye gelir miydi! Allah'a yemin ederim ki sizden bir kimse haksız yere bir şey alırsa muhakkak kıyamet gününde o aldığı şeyi taşıyarak Allah'ın huzuruna çıkacaktır. Sakın sizden herhangi birinizi inlemesi olan bir deveyi yahut böğürmesi olan bir sığırı veya melemesi olan bir davarı taşıyarak Allah'ın huzuruna çıktığını görüp tanımayayım!" Bundan sonra Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem iki elini koltuk altının beyazlığı görülünceye kadar kaldırarak "Allah'ım emirlerimi tebliğ ettim mi?" buyuruyordu. Ben bunu gözümle gördüm, bu konuşmayı da kulağımla işittim.

Ebu Rafi'nin nakline göre Resulullah Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem "Komşu komşuya en öncelikli şefidir" buyurmuştur. Birileri şöyle der: Bir kimse yirmibin dirhem karşılığında bir bahçeli konağı (dar) satın almak istese, şufayı düşürmek üzere hile yapmasında bir sakınca yoktur. O kimse yirmibin dirheme evi satın alır, satıcıya dokuzbindokuzyüz doksandokuz dirhem nakit öder ve yine ona yirmibinden kalan mukabilinde bir dinar verir. Şefî' bu konağı yirmibin dirheme satın almak isterse ne ala! Aksi takdirde o konağı ele geçirme çaresi yoktur. Sözkonusu konak bir başkası tarafından hak edilecek olursa müşteri satıcısına rücu ederek verdiği bedeli geri ister. Bu bedel dokuzbindokuzyüz doksandokuz dirhem ve bir dinardır. Çünkü satış, mal başkası tarafından hak edilince ev konusunda yapılan sarf akdi bozulmuş oldu. Eğer ev başkası tarafından hak edilmediği halde müşteri onda bir ayıp ve kusur bulursa bu takdirde o kimse konağı yirmibin dirhem karşılığında geri verir. Buhari, İmam Ebu Hanife Müslümanlar arasında bu aldatmayı caiz kıldı, demiştir. Buhari şöyle devam eder: Hz. Nebi Sallallahu Aleyhi ve Sellem "Müslümanın satışı hastalıklı olamaz, satılan şey pis olamaz ve bir gaile ve helak olamaz" buyurmuştur.

HADITH 1 — Yusayr ibn 'Amr and the Khārijites:

Yusayr ibn 'Amr said: I asked Sahl ibn Ḥunayf: "Did you hear anything from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the Khārijites?" Sahl replied: "I heard the Prophet ﷺ say — while pointing his hand toward Iraq — 'A people will emerge from this direction; they recite the Qur'an, yet it does not pass beyond their collarbones. They will pass out of Islam just as an arrow passes clean through its prey.'"

Explanation from Fath al-Bari: "One who refrains from fighting the Khārijites in order to maintain unity and to prevent people from fleeing (from Islam)." Al-Ismā'ī said: The chapter heading concerns refraining from fighting the Khārijites. The hadith relates to refraining from killing them, whether individually or collectively. However, if they begin to propagate their ideology and wage war against people, fighting them becomes obligatory. The Prophet ﷺ refrained from acting upon 'Umar's suggestion to strike the man's neck because that individual had not yet manifested any act that would reveal his true intentions. Had the Messenger of Allah ﷺ killed someone considered righteous by the people before Islam had firmly taken root in hearts, he would have driven people away from embracing Islam. After the death of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, however, when they openly declared their views, separated from the community, and acted in opposition to the imams — refraining from fighting them, when the capability to do so exists, is not permissible.

We add: There is nothing in al-Bukhārī's chapter heading that contradicts this view. Rather, he alludes to the following: if such a situation arises and a group holds beliefs similar to those of the Khārijites yet refrains from fighting, it is permissible for the head of state — if he deems it in the public interest — to leave them alone. This public interest may be rooted in the concern that engaging them would cause others who secretly hold similar beliefs to emerge and fight, thereby triggering a rebellion and open warfare against the Muslims. It is well known that the Khārijites were fierce, steadfast, and fearless in battle, throwing themselves into death without hesitation. Anyone who reflects upon what historians have recorded about the Khārijites will understand this

According to Ibn Baṭṭāl's transmission, al-Muhallab said: Reconciliation was relevant in the early days of Islam, when it was needed to ward off their harm. Once Allah caused Islam to prevail, reconciliation is no longer required — except when people have a genuine need for it. It is the head of state of the time who decides this.

We add: Imam al-Bukhārī's narration concerns "killing" (qatl), yet he titled the chapter using the word "fighting" (qitāl). This is because refraining from fighting is understood from refraining from killing, whereas the reverse does not hold.

"While the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was distributing the spoils..." — According to the narration in the Book of Manners from Abū Sa'īd via 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Nu'm, the wealth being distributed was gold nuggets sent by 'Alī from Yemen. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ divided them among four men, whose names were mentioned there.

"He has companions..." — The apparent meaning of this phrase is that the Prophet ﷺ did not order that person to be killed because of the nature of his companions. This does not constitute a reason sufficient to warrant immunity from death despite the objection he raised to the Prophet ﷺ. The consideration of public unity (as al-Bukhārī understood it) may also be at play here, since the Messenger of Allah ﷺ described them as people who outwardly profess Islam and exaggerate in acts of worship. Had the Prophet ﷺ permitted their killing, it would have driven others away from entering Islam

"Each of you would certainly consider his prayer insignificant compared to their prayer, and his fast insignificant compared to their fast." The meaning of the hadith is: Allah, the Exalted, does not allow their recitation to rise above their throats and does not accept it. Some have said: They do not act upon the Qur'an, and therefore cannot attain the reward of what they recite, gaining nothing from it but the bare act of recitation. Al-Nawawī's view is: What is meant is that they gain nothing from their recitation beyond the mere movement of their tongues — the Qur'an does not even reach their throats, let alone their hearts. For the purpose of Qur'anic recitation is to reflect upon it, ponder it, and allow it to take root in the heart.

We add: This statement of the Prophet ﷺ resembles his saying about the Khārijites: "Their faith does not pass beyond their throats" — meaning they pronounce the testimony of faith but do not know it with their hearts. A narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim states: "They recite the Qur'an moistly (raṭban)" — meaning they recite it with skill and fluency, in the most excellent manner. Some have said this means they continuously recite the Qur'an such that their tongues remain moist from it. Others, as cited by al-Qurṭubī, held that it is a figurative expression for reciting the Qur'an with a beautiful voice. A narration transmitted by Abū al-Waddāk in al-Musaddad from Abū Sa'īd — "They recite the Qur'an in the most beautiful manner of all people" — supports the first interpretation. The last interpretation is supported by the statement in Muslim's narration from the father of Abū Bakrah: "A harsh, sharp-tongued people, eloquent with the Qur'an." The most preferable of these interpretations is the third

"Just as an arrow passes clean through its prey." Meaning they exit Islam suddenly and swiftly — just as an arrow shot by a powerful archer passes clean through its prey with such speed that nothing from the prey — neither blood nor any trace — adheres to the arrow. When the archer searches for his arrow, he finds it but not the prey; he examines the arrow and, finding no blood or other trace upon it, assumes it missed its target, when in fact it struck and passed clean through.

"Their distinguishing mark (āyatuhum)" — that is, their sign — is "one of their two hands — or two breasts — resembling the breast of a woman" — or a large piece of flesh moving back and forth. The word used means moving, swaying to and fro.

"I bear witness that 'Alī fought them." According to a narration from Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh's Musnad, Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit said: I went to Abū Wā'il and asked him: "Tell me about these people whom 'Alī fought. Why did they break away from him, and why did he consider it permissible to fight them?" Abū Wā'il replied: When we split into two camps (at Ṣiffīn), the Syrian forces suffered heavy casualties, and so they raised the Muṣḥafs (copies of the Qur'an). Abū Wā'il then recounted the arbitration incident. The Khārijites uttered their famous words and encamped at al-Ḥarūrā'. 'Alī sent a messenger to them and they retreated from their position, then said: "We will stand by him. If he accepts the arbitration, we will fight him; if he breaks his promise, we will stand by him and support him." After that, a group among them separated to fight the people, and 'Alī narrated in this context what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had said about them

According to a narration in Aḥmad, al-Ṭabarānī, and al-Ḥākim: 'Abdullāh ibn Shaddād entered upon 'Ā'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, upon returning from Iraq on the nights when 'Alī was fighting the Khārijites. 'Ā'ishah said to him: "Tell me about these people whom 'Alī is fighting." 'Abdullāh ibn Shaddād replied: When 'Alī corresponded with Mu'āwiyah and agreed to refer the matter to arbitration, eight thousand of the qurrā' (reciters) turned against him and gathered at a place in the direction of Kūfah called Ḥarūrā'. They rebuked 'Alī, saying: "You have stripped off the garment Allah clothed you with and the name He gave you, and appointed men as arbiters in matters of religion. By Allah, judgment belongs to Allah alone." When this reached 'Alī, he gathered the people and ordered that a large Muṣḥaf be brought. He struck it with his hand and said: "O Muṣḥaf, speak to these people." They said: "It is not a human being that it should speak — it is only ink and paper; we speak from what we have transmitted from it." 'Alī said: "The Book of Allah is the judge between me and them. Allah, the Exalted, says regarding a man and his wife: 'If you fear a breach between them, appoint an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family.' (Al-Nisā': 35) The community of Muḥammad is far more important than a man and his wife." They took him as an enemy because he corresponded with Mu'āwiyah — yet the Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself corresponded with Suhayl ibn 'Amr. "In the Messenger of Allah there is indeed a beautiful example for you." 'Alī then sent Ibn 'Abbās to them, and Ibn 'Abbās debated with them. Four thousand people, including 'Abdullāh ibn al-Kawwā', renounced their views. 'Alī sent messengers to the rest asking them to return, but they refused. 'Alī then sent them the following message: "You may go wherever you wish, on the condition that you do not shed blood that is forbidden to shed, do not cut off roads, and do not oppress anyone. If you do these things, I will wage war against you." 'Abdullāh ibn Shaddād continued: By Allah, 'Alī did not fight them until they cut off roads and shed forbidden blood

Conclusions Derived from the Hadith:

This hadith contains a great virtue of 'Alī, may Allah be pleased with him.
'Alī was a legitimate head of state, and he was in the right in the Battles of Camel (Jamal), Ṣiffīn, and others.
In the Book of Blood-money, the restriction indicated by the word "ṣaḥīfah" in the phrase "We have nothing with us except the Qur'an and this ṣaḥīfah" refers to what is written therein — it does not mean that everything Allah informed the Prophet ﷺ of regarding future events is contained in that document. The chain of narrations of this hadith contains much information, indicating that 'Alī possessed narrations from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ regarding fighting the Khārijites and other matters mentioned therein. It is established that the Prophet ﷺ informed him that the most wretched of his people would kill him — and that wretchedness manifested in many matters.
One who believes it is obligatory to rebel against the head of state must not be killed as long as he has not taken up arms or made preparations to do so. For the relevant statement says: "Kill them when they rebel."
It is not permissible to fight and kill the Khārijites until proof has been established against them. The purpose of such proof is to call them back to the truth and to ensure that any subsequent action taken against them is legally justified. Imam al-Bukhārī alludes to this by citing the relevant Quranic verse in the chapter heading. Those who consider the Khārijites to be unbelievers cite this hadith as evidence — which is consistent with al-Bukhārī's arrangement, since he mentions them alongside those who reject all religion (mulḥids), while opening a separate chapter for those who act on the basis of misinterpretation (ta'wīl)

Qāḍī Abū Bakr ibn al-'Arabī states explicitly in his Sharḥ al-Tirmidhī: According to the sound view, the Khārijites are unbelievers, because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said "They have left Islam," and in another narration: "I will kill them as the people of 'Ād were killed" — in another wording, "Thamūd." Both 'Ād and Thamūd were destroyed because of their disbelief. Another proof of their unbelief is the statement "They are the worst of all created beings" — a characterization applied only to unbelievers. Another indicator is "They are the most despised of creatures in Allah's sight." Yet another is that they declare all who oppose their beliefs to be unbelievers deserving of eternal damnation — yet they themselves are more deserving of this label. Among those who held this opinion was the later scholar Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī, who states in his Fatāwā: Those who say the Khārijites and the extremists among the Rawāfiḍ are unbelievers cite as evidence their declaring the leading Companions to be unbelievers, since declaring the great Companions to be unbelievers amounts to calling the Messenger of Allah ﷺ a liar in his testimony that they are people of Paradise. Al-Subkī says: In our view, this is a sound line of reasoning

Al-Qurṭubī states in al-Mufhim: The view that the Khārijites are unbelievers is corroborated by the simile used in the hadith of Abū Sa'īd — which is the hadith in the following chapter. The apparent meaning of this hadith is that they have left Islam entirely, just as an arrow that passes through its prey with speed and force leaves no trace of blood upon it. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ alluded to this by saying: "The arrow entered the prey's stomach and its contents and blood..." The author of al-Shifā' states: We definitively rule that anyone who utters statements that lead to declaring the entire community to be astray, or to declaring the Companions to be unbelievers, is himself an unbeliever.

The majority of Ahl al-Sunnah scholars of foundational principles (uṣūl) have concluded that the Khārijites are sinners (fāsiqūn), and that the rules of Islam continue to apply to them since they pronounce the two testimonies of faith and continue to observe the pillars of Islam. Their sinfulness arises from their declaring Muslims to be unbelievers on the basis of a corrupt misinterpretation, which led them to regard the blood and property of those who opposed them as lawful and to call them unbelievers and polytheists

Al-Khaṭṭābī says: Muslim scholars have reached consensus that, despite their deviance, the Khārijites remain a sect of the Muslims; that it is permissible to marry them and eat what they slaughter; and that they are not unbelievers as long as they hold to the fundamentals of Islam.

Qāḍī 'Iyāḍ says: This issue has been one of the most difficult to resolve for the theologians, compared to other questions. The jurist 'Abd al-Ḥaqq once posed this question to Imam Abū al-Ma'ālī, who excused himself from answering — for he viewed including a disbeliever among the Muslims, or excluding a Muslim from their ranks, as a gravely serious matter in religion.

Al-Khaṭṭābī continues: Before him, Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī also refrained from issuing a ruling on this matter and said: "The Khārijites have not explicitly declared disbelief. They have uttered statements that lead to disbelief.

Al-Ghazālī states in al-Tafriqa bayna al-Īmān wa al-Zandaqa: What is appropriate is to refrain from declaring a person an unbeliever whenever possible. For it is an error to deem lawful the blood of those who pray and affirm the oneness of Allah. Erring by sparing a thousand unbelievers is far more tolerable than erring by shedding the blood of a single Muslim.

Ibn Baṭṭāl says: The majority of scholars have concluded that the Khārijites have not left the fold of the Muslims. Al-Qurṭubī's view in al-Mufhim is: Declaring the Khārijites to be unbelievers is more consistent with the apparent meaning of the hadith. According to the view that they are unbelievers, they are to be fought, killed, and their property confiscated — and this is the view of a group of hadith scholars regarding the property of the Khārijites. According to the view that they are not unbelievers, they are to be treated as rebels (bughāh) when they oppose the community and wage war. As for those among them who conceal their heretical beliefs: if such a belief becomes apparent, is the person to be offered the chance to repent and then killed if he refuses, or is he to be deterred from his heresy without being killed? Scholars have differed on this in parallel with their disagreement on the question of declaring them unbelievers

Al-Qurṭubī concludes: The door of declaring unbelief (takfīr) is a door of danger; nothing equals safety.

Ibn Hubayrah says: It is understood from this hadith that fighting the Khārijites is more important than fighting the polytheists. The wisdom behind this is that fighting the Khārijites preserves the capital of Islam, while fighting the polytheists aims at profit. Preserving capital takes priority.
Acting on the apparent meaning (ẓāhir) of a text is prohibited when that apparent meaning, if followed, would lead to contradicting the consensus of the early scholars (salaf) — as is the case with those Qur'anic verses susceptible to misinterpretation that lead to such a contradiction.
One must avoid extremism in religion and excessive self-imposed hardship in worship that goes beyond what the Sacred Law permits. The Lawgiver has described the Islamic sharī'ah as easy and accommodating.
Our religion calls for severity toward unbelievers and gentleness and compassion toward believers. The Khārijites, as previously explained, have inverted this principle.
It is permissible to fight those who rebel against a just head of state, wage war against him, struggle in the name of corrupt beliefs, take to brigandry, terrorize travelers, and seek to corrupt the rightful order on earth.
One who rebels against a tyrannical head of state who seeks to overpower him, seize his wealth, his life, or his family, is excused — and fighting such a person is not lawful. Such an individual has the right to defend his life, wealth, and family to the best of his ability. This matter will be elaborated upon in the Book of Tribulations (Fitan).
Fighting the Khārijites under the conditions stated above is permissible, killing them in battle is lawful, and one who fights them earns reward.
Some Muslims may exit the fold of Islam without intending to leave it and without preferring another religion over Islam.
This hadith contains a great testament to 'Umar's, may Allah be pleased with him, meticulousness and vigilance in matters of religion.
Even if a person has reached the pinnacle of worship, asceticism, and God-consciousness, it is not sufficient to declare him upright merely by looking at his outward condition — not until his inner nature has been tested and proven.

HADITH 2 — 'Amr ibn Sharīd and the Neighbor's Right of Pre-emption (Shuf'ah):

'Amr ibn Sharīd narrated: Abū Rāfi' negotiated with Sa'd ibn Mālik to purchase a house adjacent to his for four hundred mithqāl. Sa'd ibn Mālik said: "Had I not heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say 'The neighbor has the most prior right (shuf'ah) over his neighbor's property,' I would not have sold you this house.

Explanation from Fath al-Bari: "The tax collector resorting to ruse in order to receive gifts." Imam al-Bukhārī cited in this regard the hadith of Abū Ḥumayd al-Sā'idī concerning the case of Ibn al-Lutbiyyah. Part of the explanation of this hadith was given in the Book of Gifts. Its full explanation will come, God willing, in the Book of Rulings (Aḥkām).

The connection of this hadith to the chapter heading is as follows: the tax collector claiming gifts given to him as personal property was due to his official position. He believed that the gifted items were his alone to dispose of and that those on whose behalf he worked had no share in them. For this reason, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ clarified to him that the reason these gifts were given to him was his official role on behalf of those entitled to the proceeds, and explained that had he stayed at home, no one would have given him gifts. Therefore, it is not appropriate for him to deem those gifts lawful simply because they came to him in the form of gifts, since this can only be considered permissible in matters that pertain exclusively to one's personal rights.

Ibn Baṭṭāl said: This hadith demonstrates that gifts given to tax collectors stem either from gratitude for services rendered, from a desire to win their favor, or from coveting their official position vis-à-vis the rights at stake. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ indicated that with respect to gifts directed at him personally, he is like any individual member of the Muslim community — no more privileged than them — and that it is not permissible for him to appropriate such property solely for himself.

"Imam Abū Ḥanīfah permitted this ruse among Muslims." That is, Abū Ḥanīfah permitted a person to resort to ruse in order to nullify a partner's right of pre-emption (shuf'ah) when that partner, upon the property being purchased through pre-emption, feared being cheated through an exorbitant price or an unreasonably inflated valuation and therefore did not exercise his right. Al-Bukhārī, by citing the previously mentioned issue of eligibility, used it as evidence that a person who resorts to ruse with the intention of nullifying another's right of shuf'ah is engaged in a form of manipulation. He then addressed the issue of returning goods on account of a defect, thereby clarifying that this constitutes an act of coercion — the consequence of which is that the person is obligated to return only what he received, not more.

Ibn Baṭṭāl said: What is understood from this report is that it is not permissible to resort to ruse in any of the Muslims' commercial transactions — whether through the exchange contract (ṣarf) mentioned above or through other means.

We add: This conclusion is derived as follows: although the wording of the hadith is in the indicative form, its meaning carries a sense of prohibition. From the generality of this hadith, the ruling is derived that it is not lawful to resort to ruse in any of the Muslims' commercial transactions — including the exchange of one dinar for more than its value and other similar dealings. And Allah knows best.