|
|
|
Problem # 5 The claim of a person for being a Sayyid shall not be accepted merely on the strength of his claim. Of course, it is sufficient for its proof if he is well - known as such in his home-town without there being anyone denying it. A legal device may be found for giving Khums to a person whose exact position is not known once his moral soundness is established so that he may be treated as an agent for passing it one to the entitled to receive it whosoever he may be, even if it were that person himself But it is better not to adopt such a legal device.
Problem # 6 To be more cautious, a person entitled to receive Khums must not be paid more than required for his annual expenditure, even if once, in the same say as it is more cautious that he must not receive it.
Problem # 7 According to the stronger opinion, it is upto the ruler (or judge) to pay half of the Khums of the former three above-mentioned classes. So it is indispensable to pass it on to him of to spend it with his permission and order, in the same way as it is upto the ruler (or judge) to decide about the distribution of half of the share of the Imam, Peace be on him. So it is indispensable to pass it on to him so that he may spend it as it is fit in his view and opinion, or to spend it with his permission for the purpose prescribed for it. There is difficulty in the payment of the Khums by a person to a person other than whose Muqallid he is, except when the person receiving it may also spend on the same purpose in quality and quantity as required by the Mujtahid whose Muqallid the payer is, when the recipient would act according to his view.
Problem # 8 According to the stronger opinion, Khums may be transferred to another town. Rather sometimes it is preferred in view of some preferential considerations even despite the existence of someone entitled in the town from where it is transferred. In that case, if it is destroyed in transit or in the town where it is transferred, the liability shall lie on the person who is responsible, contrary to the case when there is no one entitled to receive it in the town from where it is transferred in which case there shall be no liability (if it is destroyed in transit or in the town where it is transferred). Similarly, there shall be no liability if it is transferred with the permission or order of the Mujtahid in such circumstances, even despite the existence of someone entitled to receive it Sometimes it is obligatory to transfer Khums (from one town to another) in case there is no one in a town entitled to receive it, and there is also no hope to find one later, or when the Mujtahid (whose Muqallid the payer is) orders for its transfer. It shall not be considered a transfer of Khums in case a person in the other town owes a debt that is set off against the Khums (transferred) with the permission of the legal authority.
Problem # 9 If the Mujtahid possessing all the required conditions lives in a town other than the one to which the Khums belongs, Khums shall be transferred to him or the person liable to pay the Khums shall spend it after obtaining permission from him to spend it in his home - town. Rather, according to the stronger opinion, it would be permissible to transfer the Khums from one’s own town despite the existence of a Mujtahid there, but he shall be held responsible for it, except when he was required to transfer it. Rather, it shall be better or more cautious to transfer it if the Mujtahid in other town is superior or there were some preferential considerations (in the other town), or when the Mujtahid whose Muqallid the payer of Khums is lives in another town and he has ordered him to transfer the Khums to him , except when he has permitted him to spend it in his own home town, or when the view of the Mujtahid of his own home town agrees with that of the one whom he follows, or he acts according to his view.
Problem # 10 It is permissible for the owner of the Khums to pay Khums from another set, provided that it is of the same category. But is more cautious to do so with the permission of the Mujtahid even in case of the share of the Sadat.
Problem # 11 If a person entitled to receive Khums owes some debt, according to the cautious, though not stronger, opinion, it is permissible to set it off against Khums the permission of the ruler (or judge), in the same way as allotment of the share of the Imam, Peace be upon him, depends on the view of the ruler (or judge).
Problem # 12 It is not permissible for a person entitled to receive Khums to receive something as Khums and return it to its owner, except in certain circumstances, as when he owes a large amount of money, and is unable to repay it, and is in penury that he does not hope to end, and so he intends to discharge his liability, in which case there shall be no hindrance in his way to do so.
Problem # 13 If an asset liable to Khums is transferred to a person who does not believe in the payment of Khums, such as the infidels or the opponents (i.e., the Sunnis), he shall not be under any obligation to pay it, as has already been mentioned, irrespective of its being some profit in business, or a mine, etc., and regardless whether it is from among the married women, houses or trades, etc., as the Imams of the Muslims have declared it legal for their Shiahs (or followers), as they have also declared it lawful to them to accept the taxable land from a tyrant ruler or have an agreement for a share in it or the gifts in general, as also to receive tax from him, or the other things passed on to them from him or his subordinates, to the extent that they have brought down their positions to those of the tyrants, and have endorsed their acts in order to save their Shiahs (or followers) in the trying situations from falling into prohibited acts, penury and discomfort.
Anfãl means all those things to which the Imäm, Peace be upon him, is entitled particularly due to holding the position of Imãmat in the same way as the Holy Prophet. May Allah sends Blessings on him and his Progeny, held due to holding the leader (of the Muslim Community) ordained by Allah. They include the following:
1. Everything that has not been trodden by horses and horsemen (i.e. which has not been conquered by the Muslims from the infidels by war), regardless of its being a land or anything else, whose inhabitants have evacuated from it or have surrendered it to the Muslims willingly.
2. A wasteland that yields no profit unless it is properly developed and repaired, that has turned into an uncultivated land due to being full of reeds (and shrubs), disconnection of water, or being submerged with water, or any other reason, irrespective of its having not been owned by someone as the wilderness, or having had an owner but whose owner is already dead and is no more known. To this category shall be added villages and places whose inhabitants have left them, and they have become ruined like Babylonia, Kufa, and such other places. All of them shall fall under Anfal, as far as their land and remains e stones, etc. are concerned. As regards the wastelands lying in the lands, conquered by force, according to the stronger opinion, they shall belong to a category other than that (i.e. other than Anfal). Of course, in case there is knowledge that it had been a developed and populated land at the time it was conquered, and subsequently became a wasteland, there would be hesitation and difficulty in its falling under the category of Anfal or continuing to be the property of the Muslims like other places that are at present populated, though the latter alternative is not devoid of preference, (i.e. it should be preferred still to be the property of the Muslim Community).
3. The sea coasts and the river banks, rather, every land that has no owner, though there is difficulty in their generalization, although it is not free from being close (to the authority), even if they are not wastelands, rather, even if they can be utilized without any trouble, like the islands arising between Rivers Tigris and Euphrates, or the like.
4. The mountain tops and whatever vegetation and trees, stones, etc. are there on them, the inner portions of valleys and the Ajäm, that are the lands covered by reeds and trees, without any difference in all these categories whether they are part of the lands belonging to the Imam, Peace be upon him, or lands conquered by force, or other than these two types. Of course, if a land was owned by a person and, later it became, suppose, a land covered by reeds and trees, then it shall continue to have status quo.
5. The exclusive royal property, movable or immovable.
6. Special booty, like horses of noble breed, costly garments, a cutting sword, rich armour, or the like.
7. Booties obtained during wars, not waged by the permission of the Imam, Peace be upon him.
8. A legacy having no heir
9. Mines that do not belong to a particular owner due to their being affiliated with a land or its development by the owner.
Problem. Apparently, during the Period of Occultation of the (Twelfth) Imam all the Anfäl belong to the Shiahs, in the sense that rule of ownership shall be applicable in their case, without there being any difference between the rich and the poor among them, except in the case of a legacies having no heir, in which case, according to the more cautious, if not stronger, opinion, it is a condition that the person must be poor. Rather, it is a condition that it must be distributed among the local poor people.
According to the stronger opinion, it must reach the legal authority. Similarly, according to the stronger opinion, if a non-Shi’ah occupies an Anfal property, like grass, hay, fuel (wood), etc., or develops a wasteland, he too shall become its owner like a Shiah.
Hajjis one of the Pillars of (Islamic) Faith, and abandoning it is one of the mortal sins. It is obligatory on every Muslim who fulfills the following conditions.
Problem # 1 According to the Shariah itself Hajj is obligatory throughout one’s life only once. It has an immediate obligation within the first year as soon as its conditions in respect of capability (Istita’at) are established, and it is not permissible to make any delay, so that if a person fails to perform its within the first year (of attaining the capability), he must perform it in the next year, and so on.
Problem # 2 After attaining the capability, if its performance depends on some preliminaries, such as a journey and arrangement of its means, it shall be obligatory to make the arrangements in a way that he may be able to perform it in the same year. If there are several Hajj caravans, and he is able to undertake the journey in the company of any one of them, he shall be free to make the choice.
It is, however, better for him to select the one that is more reliable as regards the aptitude for undertaking a healthy and safe journey in case he finds such a group, and there is no hindrance in setting out with them, it shall not be permissible for him to make delay, except when he is certain of finding another such group.
Problem # 3 In case he fails to set out on journey with the first group in the event of there being several groups or in the event of there being only a single group, and he happens to be unable to undertake the journey, or fails to perform Hajj due to late arrival, the obligation for the Hajj shall subsist, though he shall not be considered to have committed a sin.
Of course, if it transpires that had he accompanied the group, he would not have been able to perform Hajj, he shall cease to be under the obligation. Rather, even if their performance of Hajj is not known, he shall cease to be under the obligation.
There are a number of conditions for the obligation of Hajj. They are as follows:
First Condition: Full Maturity and Sanity. So Hajj is not obligatory on a child, even if he were an adolescent. So also it is not obligatory on an insane person, even if insanity is periodical, in case the period of his sanity is not sufficient to comprehend the whole d of performance of all the rites of Hajj whose preliminaries have not yet been achieved. The Hajj performed by a discreet child is valid, but it is not sufficient for the Islamic Hajj, even if the child fulfils all the conditions required for Hajj except maturity. According to the stronger opinion, the permission of his guardian is not a condition for the validity of his Hajj, though there is a condition of obtaining the permission of his guardian in some cases.
Problem # 1 It is approved for the guardian to clad an indiscreet child with Ihram (the special attire for the performance of Hajj), and render him one tying Ihram by tying two pieces of cloth meant for Ihräm, and express the Niyyat (or intention) on his behalf, and, if possible, teach him how to say “Labbaik”, or say “Labbaik” on his behalf, advise him to abstain from things that are forbidden after tying Ihrãm, order him to perform all the rites of Hajj and, in case he unable to perform some of them, he must perform them on his behalf. He must let him perform the Circumambulation, Sa’y, Staying in ‘Arafat, Mashar and Minã, order him to perform Ram’y (i.e. throwing pebbles on the Satans), and if the child is not able to do it, he must perform it himself on the child’s behalf. He must order him to perform ablution and offer prayer for Circumambulation, and if the child is not able do it, he must offer the prayer on the child’s behalf. It is more cautious for the child to copy the performance of ablution and prayer. It is even more cautious than that for the child to perform ablution, and, if he is not able to do, he may copy it.
Problem # 2 It is not necessary for the guardian to be tying Ihrãm with the child. But it is permissible for him to make the child tie Ihräm even if he has not himself tied it.
Problem # 3 According to the more cautious opinion, in the case of an indiscreet child’s tying Ihram, they must confine it to the legal guardian, such as the father, grandfather, an executor of either of them, the judge, his representative, or an agent appointed by them, or the mother, though she is not a guardian. There is, however, difficulty in extending this authority to one who is not a legal guardian, like one who is incharge of the child’s affairs and has the responsibility to look after him, though it would be close to the rule.
Problem # 4 The expenditure exceeding the amount of maintenance while within one’s town shall be borne by the guardian and not defrayed from the child’s property, except when the child’s protection depends on taking him along on journey. In that case, the expenditure on the journey itself shall be borne by the child, but not the expenditure on Hajj, in case it exceeds that on the journey itself.
Problem # 5 The expenditure on sacrifice (of animal, a necessary rite of the Hajj) shall be borne by the guardian, as well as the expenditure on expiation for hunting, and so also the expenditure on other expiations.
Problem # 6 If during the performance of Hajj, a discreet child attains puberty (or maturity) on reaching the Mash’ar (al-Haram), or sanity is restored to an insane person before reaching the Mash’ar, according to the stronger opinion, the Hajj of both of them shall be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj, though, according to the more cautious opinion, they should perform it again in case of their capability.
Problem # 7 If a discreet child sets out to perform Hajj, and before tying Ihram at the Miqät attains maturity, and also has capability (to perform Hajj), even if he has achieved it that very place, his Hajj shall be considered an Islamic Hajj.
Problem # 8 If a person performs Hajj as an approved one under the impression that she has still not attained maturity, but after the performance of Hajj, it transpires to be otherwise, or performs Hajj under the impression that he/she has no capability (for performing Hajj), but later its transpires to be otherwise, according to the stronger opinion, it shall not be sufficient to be counted as an Islamic Hajj, except when there has been a misunderstanding in its application.
Second Condition: Freedom (i.e. the person must not be a slave).
Third Condition: Capability as regards pecuniary competence, physical health and strength, openness and safety of the passage, and adequacy and sufficiency of time (for the performance of Hajj).
Problem # 9 Sanity is not sufficient for the obligation of Hajj, but legal capability is also a condition for it, and that means the availability of the travel expenses, transport and other things required, and in case of their unavailability, Hajj is not obligatory, and it would not be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj, without there being difference whether or the person is able to go on foot and earn his living on the way, or the like, and whether it is against his honour and status or not, and whether his place is close to or far away (from the place of Hajj).
Problem # 10 The possession of the travel expenses and transport themselves is not a condition, but the possession of so much of money is sufficient that may provide the required facilities, whether in cash or kind.
Problem # 11 By travel expenses and transport is meant whatever is needed by a person during his journey in consideration of his particular position regarding strength or weakness, nobility or lowliness. It is not sufficient to possess less than that, and it all depends on what is required by the prevalent custom. If a person suffers inconvenience due to the lack of such facilities, it shall not be sufficient to consider his Hajj an Islamic Hajj as when a person is able to arrange the travel expenses and transport through labor on the way, in which case Hajj shall neither be obligatory on him, nor shall it be sufficient (to be called an Islamic Hajj).
Problem # 12 Capability in one’s own town is not a condition (for the obligation of Hajj) So if an Iraqi or an Iranian attains capability while in Syria or Hijäz, Hajj shall become obligatory on him, though he may not be possessing capability while in his own hometown. Rather, if a person reaches before Miqat in a state of penury or for some necessary job, and there he attains the conditions imposing on him obligation of Hajj, it shall be obligatory on him, and it shall be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj. Rather, even if a person ties Ihram in a state of penury, and later attains capability (to perform Hajj), and there is another Miqat before him, it is likely to say that it shall be obligatory on him (to perform Hajj), though it is not free from difficulty.
Problem # 13 If a person finds a means of transport like a vehicle or a plane, but fails to find someone to share him. Then if he is not able to pay the transport expenses, Hajj shall not be obligatory on him. Otherwise, it shall be obligatory on him, except when payment of the transport charges may be inconvenient for him. Similar shall be the case if there is a rise in prices that year a, or the travel facilities and transport are not available except against payment higher than the proper one, or the Hajj depends on the sale of his property on lesser than its proper value.
Problem # 14 It is also a condition for the obligation of Hajj that the person must have sufficient money to defray the expenses for the return to his hometown when intended or to any other place where he intends to stay, provided that the expenses for the latter not be higher than the return to his home - town, except when necessity compels him to reside at that place.
Problem # 15 It is also a condition for the obligation of Hajj that there must be the two way expenses for transport in addition to meet the expenses on his living. So the person may not be compelled to dispose of the house suitable to his position, his luxury garments, his household goods, tools and implements of his trade or profession, his horse for riding, his vehicle for transport or any of the other things required by him according to his position, honour and status, or even the scholarly books required by him in acquiring knowledge, irrespective of their being meant for religious learning or the lawful knowledge required by him for earning his livelihood or otherwise. It is not a condition for him to require these things presently. If, suppose, the things mentioned or some of them are in his possession without their being his own property, as by way of trust, or the like it shall be obligatory on him to dispose them of for Hajj, provided that it may not be pugnant to his honour and the things mentioned may not be in a state of decay.
Problem # 16 If the articles mentioned are not surplus than his position, as regards themselves nor their value, it shall be obligatory on him to dispose them of (even on cheaper rates) and spend the sale proceeds on the Hajj expenses or to supplement them, provided that it is not a source of inconvenience, harm or weakness for him, and the surplus may be equal to the Hajj expenses or supplementary to them, although in a small quantity.
Problem # 17 If a person does not possess the necessities of life and job themselves, but has cash money or the like to purchase them, it shall be permissible for him to spend it for that purpose, without there being any difference whether he had the cash money initially or got it through the sale proceeds (of goods) intending thereby to change them or otherwise. Rather, if he spends it on Hajj, there shall be difficulty in declaring it sufficient for being considered an Islamic Hajj. Rather, it shall be forbidden. If a person possesses some (money), that is sufficient to meet the Hajj expenses, but his inner desire persuades him to marry, it shall be lawful for him to spend that money on marriage, provided that it is necessary for him either due to its giving up being a source of inconvenience or harm for him or out of fear of committing some prohibited act, or giving it up may be a source of loss or weakness for him. If a person has a wife whom he does not need, and it is possible for him to divorce her, and spend the money of her maintenance on Hajj, it shall neither be obligatory on him nor shall he be considered of having capability (to perform Hajj).
Problem # 18 If a person does not have something for Hajj, but he has some debt on a person equal to the amount of Hajj expenses; or to supplement them, it shall be obligatory on him to demand it from that person if its time of maturity has already reached, even if he has to refer the case to an unjust judge in the absence of a Court of Law and his inability to do anything (to recover his debt). Of course, if it is a source of inconvenience, or the debtor is in straitened circumstances, it shall not be obligatory (to do so). Similar is the case when the person is not able to establish his debt. If the debt is fixed in time, but the debtor is willing to repay it before time, it shall be obligatory on the creditor to receive it and spend it on Hajj. In such case it is not obligatory on the creditor to demand the repayment of the debt, when he knows that the debtor shall pay it if he demands it from him. If a person is not capable but he may obtain loan for Hajj and pay it later easily, it shall neither be obligatory on him nor shall it be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj. Similarly, if a person owns a property that at present is not in his possession and so it cannot be spent on Hajj at present, or he possesses a property of similar nature, or a debt of a fixed time which the debtor is not willing to repay before time, it is not obligatory on him to obtain loan and spend it on Hajj. Rather, its sufficiency to be considered an Islamic Hajj is also difficult; rather, it is forbidden.
Problem # 19 If a person possesses some (money) that is sufficient to meet the expenses for Hajj, but he is under debt. Now, if the time of its repayment is fixed and he is sure to be able to repay it at time of its maturity despite spending what is in his possession, Hajj shall be obligatory on him. Rather, it is not far from its being obligatory despite the debt being prompt while the debtor agrees to its delayed repayment while the person is sure to be able to repay it when demanded. In cases other than these two, Hajj shall not be obligatory. There is no difference whether the debt is obtained before the person attains capability or after it, in a way that the property belonging to another perishes after his attainment of capability, while it was under his guarantee. If a person is liable to pay Khums or Zakat, and possesses so much (money) as could be sufficient to meet the expenses for Hajj had he not been under the liability to pay Khums and Zakat, So Khums and Zakat are like debts payable on demand. So the person is not to be considered capable. If a person is liable to pay a debt which is repayable after a long time like fifty years, or owes a debt which can be subject to leniency or non-payment straightaway, or he is exempted from its liability about which he has full surety, in all these cases there shall be no hindrance in considering him capable (of performing Hajj).
Problem # 20 If as person doubts whether his property has reached the limit of capability of performing Hajj or he has the knowledge about its quantity, but doubts about the Hajj expenses, and whether it would be sufficient to meet the expenses on Hajj in such case, according to the more cautious opinion, it shall be obligatory on him to make necessary inquiries.
Problem # 21 If a person possesses so much (money) as is sufficient to meet the Hajj expenses, and also has some property that, if it subsists, it would be sufficient to meet his expenses on his return, but he has doubt about its subsistence, then apparently Hajj shall be obligatory on him irrespective of the property being in his possession or not.
Problem # 22 If a person possesses enough (money) to meet the Hajj expenses, but he is not able to proceed for Hajj due to ill health or insecurity of the passage, in such case, according to the stronger opinion, it shall be lawful for him to make any changes in the property which would entail his incapability, If, however, he fails to proceed for Hajj due to unavailability of its means or absence of Hajj caravan, then if there is likelihood of the arrangement (of the means or caravan), it shall not be lawful for him, not to speak of the case when he is sure of it, Similarly, it is not lawful to make any changes in the property before the arrival of Hajj season, If he makes any changes in the property, and, suppose, in the first case, the excuse is removed later, and in the second case, the conditions subsist, the obligation for the performance of Hajj shall also subsist, If a person is not able to proceed in the year when he had the capability, then apparently it shall be lawful for him to make changes in the property, even if he knows that he shall be able to proceed for Hajj next year, it shall not be obligatory on him to keep his property for the next years.
Problem 23 If a person owns a property which presently is not in his possession and whose quantity is upto the amount enabling him to be capable of performing Hajj solely or in combination with another property, and he is also able to make changes in it even if through an agent, he shall be considered capable, otherwise not, If the property perishes in the first case after the passage of Hajj season, or it perishes by his mistake, then, if it perishes before the departure of the Hajj caravan, according to the stronger opinion, the obligation of Hajj on him shall subsist, The same shall be the case if his Murith (or Propositus) dies while he was in some other town.
Problem # 24 If the property of a person reaches the limit enabling him to be capable, but he were ignorant of it or negligent about the obligation of Hajj on him, and came to know of it after the loss of the property by his mistake, if it were before the departure of the Hajj caravan or after the passage of Hajj season. If the loss of the property has been after the passage of the Hajj season without his mistake, even then the obligation on him shall be established provided that there were all the conditions for the obligation for Hajj while the property was still in his possession.
Problem # 25 If a person believes that he is not capable, and so he performs Hajj as an approved one, then if there is likelihood of such a misunderstanding in the application, it shall be valid, and shall be considered an Islamic Hajj, but in case of his knowledge and awareness of the rule and the subject it shall be difficult. If he performs the Hajj with the intention of the Hajj being restricted to being approved, it shall not be sufficient to be considered an Islamic Hajj, and there shall be hesitation in the validity of his Hajj. The same shall be the case if he has knowledge about his capability, and later neglects it. If he considered that prompt performance of Hajj is not obligatory on him, and so he performs it as an approved one, it shall not be sufficient (to be considered an Islamic Hajj), and there shall be hesitation in its validity.
Problem # 26 Wavering ownership of a property is not sufficient for the capability of the obligation of Hajj as in case a person enters into a contract of conveyance with the condition of having option (to rescind it) until a prescribed period of time, except when he is sure of its non-cancellation, But if the stipulation is supposed to be tantamount to cancellation, it shall denote his incapability (to perform Hajj).
|
|
|