|
|
|
Problem # 4 It is not permissible for a sitting person to lead a standing person in prayer, nor for a person in a lying posture to lead a person who is sitting.
Likewise, if a person is unable to pronounce letters according to their proper source of extraction (Makhraj) or mixes up the pronunciation of a letter with that of another, or one who mistakes in proper marking of sounds, in case it is due to the person’s inability to do so, then it would not be permissible for him to lead one who can do all this properly.
Same is the case of a dumb person leading another who can speak, though the latter may not be able to pronounce the letters properly.
Likewise, there is difficulty in the permissibility of a person who cannot pronounce the letters properly to lead another person who does it properly, where it is not the responsibility of the Imam to lead the followers, as in the last two Rak’ats, and so caution must not be given up.
Problem # 5 There is difficulty in the permissibility of Imãmat by persons having some disability, and its caution must not be abandoned by avoiding it, even if he is leading another having a similar disability, or one who is lower in rank than himself, as one sitting leading another who is in a lying posture, and this rule is not devoid of force. Of course, there is no objection if a sitting person leads another in the same posture, or one who has had Tayammum, or has a splint, to lead another in prayer.
Problem # 6 If the Imam and the follower differ in matters relating to prayer according to Ijtihãd and Taqlid, it shall be valid for the follower to follow the Imam, even if they do not agree in practice in case the follower is of the opinion that his prayer is valid in spite of the Imam having erred in ijtihãd or his Mujtahid having erred, as when the follower believes that it is obligatory to recite the four Tasbihs thrice, while the Imam is of the opinion that it is obligatory to recite the Tasbihs only once, and so he acts upon it.
The follower must not follow the Imam in case he believes that according to the Ijtihãd or Taqlid the Imam’s prayer is void, as there would be difficulty where they differ as to the recitation of the other Sürah of the Quran, even if the follower believes in the validity of his prayer, as when in the opinion of the Imam it is not obligatory to recite another Surah of the Quran and so he gives up its recitation, while the follower holds the opinion that it is obligatory to recite another Sürah. So in this case caution must not be given up by the follower by giving up following that Imam.
Of course, if the difference between them is not known, it would be permissible for the follower to follow the Imam, and it is not obligatory on him to make query and investigation.
In case, however, there is knowledge about the difference of both in the opinion, and there is suspicion of their difference in practice, then, according to the stronger opinion, it would not be permissible for him to follow that Imam in so far as it relates to the problems in which it is not permissible to follow the Imam despite clear position, and so also there is difficulty in following the Imam in matters where there is difficulty.
Problem # 7 If the Imam starts offering prayers under impression that its due time has reached, while the follower believes otherwise, or has doubt about it, it shall not be permissible for the follower to follow that Imam in that prayer. Of course, if he knows that during the prayer the due time of the prayer has reached, he may join the Imam in case judgment is given in the validity of the prayer of the Imam himself.
Problem # 8 If a dispute takes place among the Imams, then, according to the more cautious opinion, it is better to give up following all of them.
Of course, if they dispute for bringing another forward, as when each of them invites another to go forward, then the person who is favored by the followers to be preferred must be preferred. In case they also differ, the person possessing all the qualifications must be brought forward.
In case there is no such person, or there may be several such persons, then the person having a better pronunciation should be brought forward. Then the one having better knowledge about the rules of prayer, and then the one who is the oldest in age, should be brought forward.
In the mosque, the Imam who has the charge of leading prayers must be given preference, even if there is another superior to him, though it is better to let the superior one lead the prayers. The owner of the house is to be preferred to others who have permission to lead the prayers, though it is better that the one superior to others must lead the prayer. A Hashimi is to be preferred to another who is equal to him in qualifications.
The above preferences are in consideration of superiority and approval, not by way of necessity and obligation, even as regards the preference of Imam in charge of leading the prayers in a mosque, and so it is not forbidden for another to compete with him, even if he is inferior to him in all respects. But the rivalry (in such cases) is bad, rather contrary to the ideals of manhood, even if the rival is superior to another in all respects.
Problem # 9 It is more cautious that a person suffering from black or white leprosy, or one who has been inflicted Hadd even if he has repented, should abandon Imãmat, and the followers should give up offering prayers behind them.
The Imãmat of a person who has been left uncircumcised due to some excuse is also disapproved.
Same is the case with a person whose Imàmat is not approved by the followers.
Similarly, it is disapproved for a person having performed Tayammum to lead another who has obtained cleanness by taking bath or ablution; rather, it is better that any person who has any blemish should not lead in prayer another who has no blemish.
Problem # 10 If a follower in prayer knows that the prayer of the Imam is void due to his being polluted (or unclean), or due to giving up a pillar of the prayer, or the like, it would not be permissible for him to follow that Imam, even if the Imam believes in the validity of his prayer due to ignorance or inadvertently.
Problem # 11 If a follower finds some unclean substance on the garment of the Imam which cannot be excused, then, if he knows that the Imam has forgotten it, it shall not be permissible for him to follow that Imam in the prayer.
If, however, the follower knows that the Imam has been ignorant of the unclean substance, it would be permissible for the follower to offer prayer behind that Imam.
In case the follower does not know whether the Imam is ignorant of the unclean substance or has forgotten it, then there shall be hesitation and difficulty in the permissibility (of the follower’s following that Imam in prayer), and so caution must not be given up.
Problem # 12 If, after the prayers, it transpires that the Imam was a profligate or unclean, the prayer of those who have offered prayers with him shall be valid, and all those things which are excused in prayer shall be excused in this case as well.
Problem # 1 Intention (Niyyat) is a condition in fasting, so that a person intends to perform that ‘Ibãdat (devotional service) prescribed by Shari ah, and determines to keep himself away from all those things which invalidate it with the intention of obtaining closeness (to Allah).
If a person intends to abstain from all those things which vitiate a fast, but does not know that some of things have such effect, as, for example, enema, or considers that they have no such effect, but does not practice them, his fast shall be valid.
Similarly, if he intends to abstain from things which he knows are included among those which invalidate the fast, according to the stronger opinion, his fast shall be valid.
In a fast, after the intention of closeness to Allah and sincerity of purpose, there is no further condition in the intention except specifying the fast which one intends to keep in obedience to the command of Allah.
While keeping fast in the month of Ramadãn, it is sufficient to have the intention of keeping fast the next day without specifying it Rather, even if he has an intention of keeping fast other than of Ramadãn in that month due to negligence or forgetfulness, the fast shall be valid, and shall be counted among the fasts of Ramadan, contrary to the one who knows it, so that if he has such intention with knowledge, his fast shall be counted neither as a fast of Ramadãn nor otherwise.
According to the stronger opinion, it is indispensable in case of a fast for other than the month of Ramadàn to specify the particular category of the fast, such as for expiation, compensation or general vow (Nadhr) or a special vow.
It is sufficient to specify briefly, as when it is obligatory on him to keep a special category of fast, and he has the intention to keep fast which he owes, it would be sufficient.
Apparently there is no condition of any specification in a generally recommended fast, so that if a person has the intention of keeping fast the next day for the sake of Allah, it shall be valid, if it is the proper time for it, and the person be one for whom it is valid to keep fast voluntarily.
The same shall be the case if it were a specially recommended fast too, so that it is specified for a particular time, as the blank days (when there is no moon), Friday or Thursday.
Of course, in order to obtain a special reward, it is a condition that the person should keep fast at that particular day and with that special intention.
Problem # 2 If a person is keeping compensatory fast for another person, it is a condition that he should have the intention of keeping fast on behalf of another, even if he himself does not owe any fast.
Problem # 3 During the month of Ramadãn one may not keep any fast except for Ramadãn, whether it is obligatory or an approved one, whether the person keeping fast is Mukallaf for keeping fast or not, as a traveller or the like. Rather even if the person is ignorant of the month being Ramadãn or due to forgetfulness, the person keeps fast for another month, the fast shall be counted as one of the month of Ramadãn, as mentioned earlier.
Problem # 4 According to the stronger opinion, there is no time for the intention according to the Shari”ah in case of a specified obligatory fast, whether it is for the Ramadãn or any other month.
Rather the criterion for keeping the fast is the determination and resolution remaining in the heart, even if the person becomes neglectful about his fast due to sleep or the like. There is no difference in the occurrence of this determination whether it takes place dose to dawn or before it, and whether its takes place in the night proceeding the day in which the fast is intended, or before it. So if a person has intention of keeping fast the next morning, and sleeps with this determination until the end of the next day, according to the most valid opinion, it shall be a valid fast.
Of course, if the person fails to have intention due to some excuse like forgetfulness, negligence or ignorance about the month being that of Ramadàn, sickness or journey, and his excuse is removed before noon, its time is extended according to the Shari’ah upto noon, provided that the person has not taken anything breaking the fast. So when it is past meridian, its time is also over. Of course, there is difficulty in application of the rule to all types of excuses; rather in case of sickness, it is not free from difficulty, though it is not devoid of closeness (to validity).
In case of an unspecified fast, the time for option is extended upto the noon, but not after it. So if a person gets up in the morning intending not to keep fast, but does not take anything which may break the fast, then before noon he decides to keep compensatory fast for Ramadàn, or expiation or vow in general, it shall be permissible and valid, but not after noon. In case of a recommended fast, the time for option is extended upto when there still some time left when it is possible to renew the intention in it.
Problem # 5 If a person doubts about a day whether it is of the month of Sha’bãn or Ramadãn, it shall be decided to be of Sha’bãn, and so it shall not be obligatory on him to keep fast. If the person keeps fast with the intention that it is for the month of Sha’bàn, but later it transpires that Ramadàn had begun on that day, it shall be counted to be for Ramadãn.
Likewise, if a person under the impression that it is still the month of Sha’bãn keeps fast as compensatory or for a vow, it shall be counted to be for Ramadãn if it coincides with Ramadãn. Rather, even if a person keeps fast with the intention that if Ramadãn has started it may be deemed to be an obligatory one for Ramadãn, otherwise a recommended one, it shall not be far from being valid, even if he had hesitation in his intention as to its time. If a person keeps fast with the Intention that it is for Ramadãn, but it was not the month of Ramadãn, then it would neither be for Ramadàn nor for any other month.
Problem # 6 If on a doubtful day a person intended not to keep fast, then during the day it transpired that it was a day of Ramadãn, then if he has already taken something which breaks the fast or the position has become clear after noon but he has not taken anything which breaks the fast, he shall refrain from taking anything during the remaining part of the day, but shall keep fast in compensation for it.
If, however, it was before noon, and he has not taken anything which breaks the fast, he may renew the intention, and it would be permissible for him.
Problem # 7 If a person keeps fast on a doubtful day with the intention that it was for the month of Sha’bàn, and then takes inadvertently something which breaks the fast, then it transpires that it was a day of Ramadãn, it would be a valid fast.
Of course, if he vitiates his fast by hypocrisy or the like, it shall not be permissible for him, even if it transpires to be a day of Ramadãn before noon, and he has renewed his intention.
Problem # 8 As it is obligatory to have an intention at the beginning of the fast, it is also obligatory that it must continue throughout the fast. If a person intends to discontinue a specified obligatory fast in the sense that his intention is to withdraw from what is called a fast, then, according to the stronger opinion, the fast shall be rendered void, even if he reverts to the intention of keeping fast before noon. The same shall be the case if a person intends to discontinue his fast due to some blemish in his fast which later turns out to be otherwise, it is also repugnant to the continuance of a fast if a person hesitates in continuing the fast or withdrawing it. The same shall be the case if a person hesitates in continuing his fast due to the occurrence of something which he does not know whether it is something that invalidates the fast or not. In case of a non-obligatory specified fast, if a person intends to discontinue it, then reverts before the noon, his fast shall be valid.
This is all with regard to the intention of discontinuation. But the mere intention to discontinue the fast with the intention of taking something that breaks the fast is not itself something that breaks the fast, according to the stronger opinion, even if it is consequently intended to discontinue the fast. Of course, if a person intends to discontinue a fast, and considering the necessity for it, has such an intention separately, according to the stronger opinion, the fast shall be rendered void.
Problem # 1 There are some things from which a person keeping fast must abstain. They are as follows.
First & Second : Eating or Drinking, whether usual things like bread and water, or unusual things like pebbles or the juice of trees, even if they are in a very small quantity, like one-tenth of a grain or one-tenth of a drop.
Problem # 2 The criterion is the application of the words eating and drinking, though they be in a way unusual. So if water reaches the cavity of his mouth through his nose, it shall be called drinking, though it is in an unusual way.
Third: Sexual Intercourse, whether the person subjected is a male or female, a human being or an animal, in the natural or unnatural way (i.e. from the front or the backside), whether the person subjected is alive or dead, a minor or an adult, whether the person committing the act is keeping fast or the one subjected, in all these cases the fast shall be deemed to be void, even if there has been no ejaculation. The fast is not rendered void if the act is done due to forgetfulness or coercion, depriving the person acting of control, excluding compulsion which also invalidates the fast. If a person indulges in a sexual intercourse out of forgetfulness or due to coercion, and during the act comes to realize (that it invalidates the fast), or the coercion is removed, he must withdraw immediately, so that if he delays the withdrawal, his fast shall be rendered void. If a person merely intended to rub his organ on the thighs, but the penetration has taken place unintentionally, then the fast shall not be rendered void. The same rule shall apply in case a person intends penetration, but it does not take place.
By what has been mentioned about the absence of something that breaks the fast is meant the intention of the person breaking the fast. The sexual intercourse takes place with the penetration of the glans penis or a part of it. Rather the fast shall be rendered void by the mere application of what is called penetration in case of a person whose penis is chopped off, even if there is no part of the penis left unchopped.
Fourth: Ejaculation of the Semen, whether by masturbation, touching, kissing, rubbing (the male organ) on the thighs (of another person), or such other acts which are intended to cause discharge of semen. Rather even in case when the discharge of semen is not intended, but it was the usual consequence of the said act, in that case too it shall render the fast void. Of course, if ejaculation takes place without doing some thing which causes ejaculation in a person as a matter of his habit even without any intention on his part, it shall not render the fast void.
Problem # 3 There is no objection if a person performs Istibra’ after urinating or pulls off in case he has had Ihtilam during the day, even if he knows that it will cause the emission of whatever semen is left in the passage, when it is done before performing the bath for Janãbat.
As regards the performance of Istibrâ’ after the bath for Janãbat, if he knows that it will cause a fresh Janãbat, then it is more cautious to give it up; rather the necessity of giving it up is not devoid of force.
It is not obligatory to prevent discharge of semen after ejaculation, if a person wakes up before it, particularly when it may cause some harm and distress.
Fifth: Deliberate Continuance of Janãbat upto the Morning in Ramadãn or at the time of its Compensation. Rather in the latter case, according to the stronger opinion, the fast shall be declared void if a person gets up in a state of Janãbat in the morning, though it may not be deliberate, as also, according to the stronger opinion, the fast of month of Ramadãn is rendered void if a person forgets to perform the bath for Janãbat at the night before morning until a day or a few days have passed in that state.
Rather it is more cautious to include the fast of other than Ramadãn as well, such as the fast for specified vow or the like, though, according to the stronger opinion, it is to the contrary, except in case of the compensatory fast for the month of Ramadãn. So caution must not be given up in its case.
As regards the invalidation of the fasts for other than the month of Ramadãn or the compensatory obligatory specified or Muwassa’ fast (which has some vast time for compensation) or a recommended fast due to the deliberate continuation in a state of Janãbat, there is difficulty ( in accepting it). According to the more cautious opinion, it is void in case of obligatory Muwassa’, and according to the stronger opinion, it is not void, particularly in case of a recommended fast.
Problem # 4 If a person gets polluted at a time when there is sufficient time neither for taking ritual bath nor Tayammum with the knowledge about it, he shall be treated as one deliberately continuing in a state of Janãbat.
If, however, there is sufficient time only for Tayammum, he shall be deemed to have sinned, and his specified fast shall be declared valid, though it is more cautious to compensate for it.
Problem # 5 If a person pollutes himself under the impression that there is vast time, but later it transpires that it is otherwise, he shall have no liability, if he had made necessary investigation about it; otherwise, he shall be required to compensate for it.
Problem# 6 As a fast is invalidated due to the deliberate continuance in a state of Janãbat, so is the fast rendered void on the continuance of pollution due to menstrual or puerperal blood until dawn. So if a woman becomes clean of them before morning, it becomes obligatory on her to perform ritual bath or Tayammum. And in case a woman deliberately fails to take ritual bath or perform Tayammum, her fast shall be rendered void.
Likewise, according to the stronger opinion, it is a condition in the validity of the fast of a Mustahadah to perform the ritual baths which are performed during the day for offering prayer to the exclusion of other baths. So if a woman becomes a Mustahadah before offering the morning prayer or the prayers for Zuhr or Asr in case where it is obligatory to perform the ritual bath as in case of Medium or Major Istahadah, and she fails to perform the ritual bath, her fast shall be rendered void, contrary to the-case when she becomes a Mustahadah after offering the prayers for Zuhr and Asr, and she fails to perform the ritual bath until sunset, in which case her fast shall not be declared void. However, she must not give up the caution by performing the ritual bath for the last night. It shall be sufficient for her to perform the ritual bath before morning in order to offer the prayer for night or the morning. In such case, her fast shall be valid.
Problem # 7 If a person has no means for performing the ritual bath or Tayammum, his bath shall be declared valid if he continues to be in a state of pollution due to Janãbat or the uncleanness due to menstrual or puerperal blood.
Of course, in case of a fast which is invalidated due to the continuance in a state of Janãbat even unintentionally, as the compensatory fast for the month of Ramadan apparently it shall thereby be rendered void.
Problem # 8 For the validity of a fast performance of the ritual bath for touching the dead body is not a condition, as it is also not harmful if a person touches a dead body during the day.
Problem # 9 If a person fails to perform the ritual bath due to unavailability of water or the other means for Tayammum and due to tightness of time he is obliged to perform Tayammum for fasting, so if he fails to perform it until he gets up in the morning, he shall be like one who has failed to perform the ritual bath, and he is not obliged to continue in a state of Tayammum while awake until he gets up in the morning, though it would be more cautious.
Problem # 10 If a person wakes up after having nocturnal pollution (Ihtilàm), then if he knows that the pollution has taken place at night, his fast shall be intact if the time is short; otherwise, he shall be required to compensate for the fast of the month of Ramadãn, though it is more cautious to keep fast that day and also keep a compensatory fast for it, and though the permissibility of sufficiency for keeping a compensatory fast after the next month of Ramadãn is not devoid of force. If the person has sufficient time (for taking ritual bath) and he is keeping a compensatory fast for the month of Ramadãn, the fast shall be void (in case he fails to perform the ritual bath). If, however, it were a fast for any other month or a recommended one, it would be valid; other wise, it would be more cautious to affiliate it with that of the month of Ramadãn.
In case he does not know the time when the pollution has taken place, or when he know that the pollution has taken place during the day, the fast shall not be rendered void, without there being any difference between his having sufficient time or not, or the fast being a recommended one. It is not obligatory on him to perform the ritual bath immediately, in the same way as it is not obligatory on any person having been polluted involuntarily during the day to perform the ritual bath immediately, though it would be more cautious to do so.
Problem # 11 If a person becomes polluted at night in the month of Ramadan, it shall be permissible for him to sleep before performing ritual bath if it is possible for him to wake up once or twice, rather even more particularly if it is his habit to wake up, and in that case his sleep shall not be forbidden, though it is more cautious to give up sleep for the second time or more. If a person sleeps with the hope that he would wake up, but he fails to wake up until morning, if he intended not to perform the ritual bath even if he woke up, or was hesitant about it, or had not decided about it, then if he has not been hesitant, forgetful or negligent, he shall fall under the category of one who deliberately continues in a state of pollution, and so it is incumbent on him to compensate for it and also expiate, as follows. If, however, he intended to perform the ritual bath, he shall be under no liability whether compensating for it or expiating. But a person who has had a nocturnal pollution should not give up caution, in case he wakes up and then sleeps, and does not wake up until morning, by keeping fast for that day and also compensating for it, though, according to the stronger opinion, the fast for that day shall be valid.
If such a person wakes up and sleeps again until the morning, his fast shall be declared void. So it shall be obligatory on him to abstain from things which break the fast in honour of the fast, and also compensate for it. If a person sleeps for the third time, and does not wake up (until morning), according to the prevalent opinion, he shall also have to expiate, though there is hesitation (in accepting this opinion); rather the absence of obligation is not devoid of force. But caution must not be given up.
If a person is forgetful or negligent about performing the ritual bath, and intend neither to perform it nor to give it up, there are two opinions about whether it should be governed by the first rule or the second, the better one being favour applying the second rule to it.
Sixth: According the stronger opinion, Deliberate Lying about Allah, the Exalted, His Prophet and the Imams, Peace be upon them, and, likewise Lying about the other Prophets and saints, Peace be upon them, according to the more cautious opinion, without there being any difference whether the lie relates to this world or Hereafter, and whether it is oral or in writing, or by indication or indirect expression, or the like, which establishes the lie against them, (Peace be upon them). So if a person asks him whether the holy Prophet, Allah’s Blessings be upon him and his Progeny, has said so and so, he makes a sign meaning “Yes” instead of “No”, or “No” instead of” Yes”, his fast shall be rendered void. Likewise, if a person relates something true from the holy Prophet, Allah’s Blessings be upon him and his Progeny, and then he should say that what I had related from the Prophet was untrue, or relates something untrue from him at night, and in the day he should say that what he had related from him at night was true, his fast shall be rendered void. There is no difference whether a person lies about them in what relates to their sayings or otherwise, like the false reports that he had done so and so, or he was such and such.
According to the stronger opinion, the rule of invalidity of the fast shall not apply in case the purpose of the person is not serious with regard to the reports, as when he is just joking or talking nonsense.
Problem # 12 If a person intends to tell the truth, but it turns out to be untrue, it shall do no harm to the fast. The same shall be the case if a person intends to tell something untrue, but it turns out to be true, even if he knows that it invalidates the fast.
Problem # 13 There is no difference whether the lie has been invented by the person himself or by some one else, as it were mentioned in any of the books on history or Traditions, if it were in the form of a Tradition. Of course, it would not invalidate his fast if he relates something as a story or a narration from any other person or book.
|
|
|