Problem # 3 If a person attacks someone related to another like his son, daughter, father, brother or any other person related to him, including his male or female servant, to kill him or her unjustly (or without any reason), it is permissible, rather obligatory, to defend him or her even if it results in killing the aggressor.

Problem # 4 If a person makes a trespass on the haram of another, regardless of her being his wife or any other person, he shall be bound to defend her in whatever way possible, even if it results in killing the trespasser. Rather, apparently the same rule shall apply if some one attacks his haram short of trespass.

Problem # 5 If a person makes a trespass on his or his wife's property, it shall be permissible for him to defend it by whatever means possible, even if it results in killing the trespasser.

Problem # 6 In all the cases mentioned above, a person is bound to initiate with the mildest steps possible. So if the defense is possible by admonition or warning in any way as, for example, by coughing, he shall do it.

Similarly, if the danger cannot be removed except by shouting or horrifying threats, he shall do so and confine himself to such acts.

So also if it cannot be removed except by the use of hand, he shall use it, or by the use of a rod, he shall confine himself to its use. If it cannot be removed except by the use of the sword, he shall confine himself to inflicting injury, if the danger can be removed by it. If it is not possible except by killing, he shall kill with any killing implement.

One is bound to observe the sequence if possible and if there is ample time and absence of any fear of thief over overpowering-him. Rather if there is fear of loss of time and his being overpowered by the thief by observing the sequence, he shall not be bound to observe the sequence, and he shall be allowed to resort to the sure means of defense.

Problem # 7 If the person (defending himself) has not transgressed the limits, and some monetary or physical damage or death is incurred on the aggressor, it shall entail no liability, and the defender shall not be held liable for his act.

Problem # 8 If the person (defending himself) transgressed the limit that in his own view and in fact would be sufficient for his defense, then, according to the more cautious opinion, he shall be held liable for it.

Problem # 9 If some damage is caused to the person defending himself by the aggressor directly or indirectly, he shall be held liable for it, regardless whether it is an injury, loss of life or property, or the like.

Problem # 10 If a person or his harem is subjected to aggression for killing him or her, he is bound to defend himself or her, even if he is sure of being killed, not to speak of anything less than that, and not to speak of the case he presumes so, or there is its likelihood. But in case of loss of property, one is not bound to defend it. Rather it is more cautious to surrender it in case there is likelihood of loss of life, not to speak of the case when there is certainty of being killed.

Problem # 11 If it is possible to save oneself by escape or the like, then it is more cautious to save oneself by escape or the like. If one's harem is subjected to aggression, and it is possible to save oneself in any way other than fighting, then it is more cautious to resort to it.

Problem # 12 If a person or his harem is subjected to aggression for killing him or her, he shall be bound to fight, even if he is certain that his fight shall not be effective for his defense, and it is not permissible for him to surrender, not to speak of the case when he presumes it or there is its likelihood. But in case of fear of loss of property, he is not bound to fight; rather, it is more cautious to refrain from it.

Problem # 13 If the intention of an aggressor is proved, even if by reliable indications, it shall be permissible for him to defend himself without any hesitation. Whether it is permissible for him to do so in case of presumption or likelihood causing apprehension, apparently it shall not be permissible for him provided that he is sure of being safe from the harm if someone intends to incur it due to his power of defense or his strength or the possibility of defense in any way if someone intends to attack him. In case otherwise, there is hesitation in the absence of permissibility.

Problem # 14 If a person gains knowledge that some one is intending to attack him, his honour or his property, and so he exerts in his defense, but in doing so he injures the other person or hurts him physically. Later, it transpires that he was mistaken. In such case, he shall be held liable, even if he shall not be considered to have committed any sinful act.

Problem # 15 If some thief or aggressor intends to attack a person, while he thinks otherwise. Now if he attacks the thief or aggressor not for defending himself but due to some other reason, then apparently he shall not be held liable even if he kills the thief or aggressor, but he shall be considered foolhardy.

Problem # 16 If two thieves or such individuals attack each other, then if one of them took the initiative while the other defended himself, the initiator shall be held liable but not the defender, although had the initiator had not taken the initiative, the other one would have taken the lead. If both of them attack simultaneously, then apparently each of them shall be held liable if they have hurt each other physically. If one of them refrains, but the other attacks him and hurts him physically, the other person shall be held liable.

Problem # 17 If a person is attacked by a thief or such other person, but he knows that he would not be able to execute his intention due to the hindrance of a river or a wall, he must save himself from the other, but he shall not be allowed to inflict any injury on him or his life, etc, so that if he inflicts some injury, he shall be held liable for it. The same rule shall apply if the improbability was due to other person's weakness.

Problem # 18 If a person is going to attack another, but before reaching the other repents and repentance is visible from him, the other person shall not be allowed to harm him in any way. If he does, he shall be held liable for it. Of course, if he is afraid that it is a ruse on his part and that he shall thereby lose an opportunity if he lets him go, then it shall not be far from permissible. But he shall be held liable (for the injury) if the other party happens to be truthful.

Problem # 19 It is permissible to defend oneself if a person faces an aggressor or such other person, at the same time observing the sequence mentioned, if possible.

Problem # 20 If the enemy's falling back is meant for gathering force, the other person shall be allowed to defend himself, provided that he is certain or is satisfied about its being so. But if he turns out to be mistaken, he shall be held liable for any injury incurred by him.

Problem # 21 If a person presumes or there is reasonable likelihood that the enemy's falling back is meant for arranging force, and so the other person is afraid of any harm to his life or honour, and at the same time he is afraid of losing an opportunity if he lets him go, and that he shall overpower him if he gathers the strength, then apparently he shall be allowed to put up defense at the same time observing the sequence, if possible. But if later it transpires that he was mistaken, he shall be held liable for what entails liability. It is more cautious to abandon defense, particularly if it would cause injury or death (to the other person).

Problem # 22 If a person catches a thief or an aggressor, fastens him or beats him and then leaves him in a way that he is no more able to execute his intention, then he shall not be allowed to harm him by beating or killing or wounding him. If he does, he shall be held liable for it.

Problem # 23 If it is not possible for a person to defend himself, then in case his life or honour is threatened, he shall be bound to ask the help of another, even if he were a tyrant oppressor, rather even if he were an infidel. It is also allowed in case of defending one's property.

Problem # 24 If he is certain that the oppressor whose help he is beseeching for defending his life or honour would transgress the limits necessary for defense, even then he shall be allowed to ask for his help; rather, he shall be bound to do so. If all the conditions are there, he shall be bound to forbid him from transgressing. If he transgresses, he shall be held liable for it. Of course, if defense is possible without asking for help, he shall not be allowed to ask for help.

Problem # 25 If a person beats a thief, for example, when he is face to face with him, and cuts some of his limbs, provided that it was indispensable for his defense, he shall not be held liable for it. Nor shall he be held liable if later the wound is infected and results in the death (of the thief). But if after beating, the thief turns his back for safety and runs away, he must let him go. In the latter case, if the person beats the thief, injuring him or cutting any of his limbs, or killing him, he shall be liable.

Problem # 26 If the (defending) person cuts the hand of the thief while defending himself in the combat and the other hand while the thief had turned his back and was running away, and then both the hands are healed, the Qisas for the second hand shall be established. But if the second hand is healed, but the first is infected, he shall be under no liability for it. If, however, the first hand is healed, and the second one is infected, resulting in the death (of the thief), Qisas shall be established for it.

Problem # 27 If a person finds another committing an unlawful act short of fornication with his wife or any of his close relatives like his son, daughter, or any other of his kinsmen, he shall be entitled to drive him away at the same time starting with the mildest measures, if possible, even if it leads to killing the trespasser, and he shall not be held liable for it Rather, even if he defends a stranger as if defending himself, then he shall not be held liable for whatever happens to the other party.

Problem # 28 If a man finds another man indulging in fornication with his wife, and is certain of his wife's acquiescence with it, he shall be allowed to kill both of them, and he shall neither be considered to have committed a sin nor held liable to pay Diyat, regardless whether both of them are married or not, and whether the wife is permanent or temporary, and whether marriage has been consummated or not

Problem # 29 In cases where permission is given for beating, injuring or killing, this permission is between him and Allah, and, in fact, in such case he is under no liability. But apparently the judge shall give his judgment in such cases according to the judicial criteria. So if a person has killed a man, and claims that he had seen him (committing fornication) with his wife, and has no witnesses as required by the Legislator (i.e., Allah, the Exalted), the judge shall condemn him to pay Qisas. The same principle shall be observed in other cases of similar magnitude.

Problem # 30 If a person casts an eye on the privy parts of others, an act that is forbidden for him, they shall be entitled to rebuke and forbid him. Rather they shall be bound to do so. In case he does not stop, they shall be allowed to drive him away by beating, etc. If he does not give up, then they may throw a pebble, etc. upon him including fatal implements. In this case, if any injury is inflicted on him, it shall cause no liability on the person inflicting it, even if it results in death (of the perpetrator of the forbidden act). If they resort to throwing pebbles, before rebuking and warning him, according to the more cautious opinion, they shall be held liable.

Problem # 31 If the people rebuke him, but he does not desist, they shall be entitled to throw pebbles on him with the intention of wounding him, if the solution lies solely with it, and also intending to kill him, if this is the sole measure for driving him away.

Problem # 32 If the onlooker were a kinsman of the women of the master of the house (or head of the family), and he were looking at what was allowed to look at without any carnal desire or bad intention, they shall not be entitled to throw pebbles on him. If they do so, resulting in some injury to him, they shall be held liable for it.

Problem # 33 If the kindred cast an eye on what is not permitted to look at, like a privy part, or his looks were lascivious, he shall be treated as a stranger, then they shall be entitled to throw pebbles on him after having rebuked and warned him. In such case if any injury is inflicted on him, it shall not entail any liability.

Problem # 34 If the person standing close to the privy parts happens to be blind, it shall not be permissible to throw anything on him. If someone does it, resulting in an injury to him, he shall be held liable for it. The same rule shall apply in case of a person who cannot see distant things, and the distance between him is so much that he cannot see (the privy parts of) the women or cannot discern them.

Problem 35 If a person looks lasciviously at the landlord's son, he shall be entitled to drive him away and rebuke him, and in case he does not desist, to throw pebbles at him, and if some injury is inflicted, it shall go without any liability.

Problem # 36 If a person peeps into a house where there is none prohibited to look at, it shall not be allowed to throw pebbles at him. If some one throws pebbles at him resulting in an injury to him, he shall be held liable for it.

Problem # 37 If a person looks at the privy parts (of another), and he is rebuked, but he does not desist. So pebbles are thrown at him resulting in injury to him. Then he claims that he did not intend to look at, and that he did not even see any thing, his words shall not be entertained, and apparently the person throwing pebbles shall not be held liable.

Problem # 38 If the onlooker were very far so that it was not possible for him to look at the privy parts, but he looked at them with the help of modern implements, he shall be treated as one looking from close. He shall be allowed to be driven away. In case of any injury inflicted on him, it shall go without any liability.

Problem # 39 If a person places a mirror before him, and looks at the privy parts by means of the mirror, then he shall be governed by the rule applicable to one looking without any other means. It is, however, more cautious not to throw pebbles at him and get rid of him in some other away Rather, caution must not be given up (in his case).

Problem # 40 Apparently it is permissible to drive such intruder in the way mentioned, even if it is possible for the women to conceal their privy parts or enter some place where an onlooker may not look at them.

Problem # 41 A person is entitled to defend himself, or another, or his property against the attack of an animal (lit. a quadruped animal). If it causes some defect or loss (of the animal) provided that it was the sole measure for defense against it, there shall be no liability for it. If it is possible to make the animal run away, then apparently it is shall not be permissible to inflict any injury to it, so that if some one inflicts injury in such circumstances, he shall be held liable for it.

SECTION NINE EARNING AND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS

The Earning and commercial transactions have several categories. We shall discuss their outstanding categories and their relevant problems under the following Chapters.

Introduction

The Introduction consists of the following Problems.

Problem # 1 It is forbidden to make earning through all kinds of unclean objects, though there is hesitation in the generality of the rule. Nevertheless, caution must not be given up in this regard by buying or selling them or making them a price in a contract for sale, a rent in a contract for hire, a wage for labor in a Ju'alah, or a consideration generally in any transaction, even if it were a dower, compensation in Khul' , or the like. Rather, one is not allowed to make them a subject of free gift or a conveyance without consideration. It is also not allowed to make an earning through them, even if one may accrue a considerable profit out of the transaction, like making manure with urine.

The (grape) juice when boiled before two-third of it evaporates in which case it is declared to be unclean, an infidel of any type, according to the stronger opinion, including even a Fitri apostate (i.e. an apostate born of Muslim parent or parents) and a hunting dog, rather even a sheep dog, farms, orchards and houses are exceptions to this rule.

Problem # 2 The unclean objects, with the exclusion of those exempted, though not made a subject of property transaction according to Shari'ah, may yet give a special right to the person in whose possession or occupation they happen to be, arising from their ownership or due to their being his property, or the like, as, for example, when an animal dies and becomes dead, or when one's grapes turn into wine.

This right is transferable to another person through inheritance, etc., and no one is allowed to make a disposal of it without the permission of the person having its title. So it is lawful to make it a subject of a conveyance without a consideration, but it is not free from objection to make it a consideration in a transaction. Rather, it is not far from being included in the category of prohibited earning deals.

Of course, if some one pays something material so that he may give up its possession and lets it be owned by the payer, it shall be safe from objection, like the payment of something to a person who has previously occupied some land from the public places, like a mosque or a school, so that he may give up their possession, and the payer's right may be established on it.

Problem # 3 There is no objection in the permissibility of sale of some part of a dead body, the part considered to be lifeless, intended thereby to make a lawful earning, such as its hair or wool, rather even its milk, if it is declared to be clean. In case of permissibility of sale of a clean dead body like that of a fish, or the like, when a person accrues some profit out of it, even if from its mouth, there is hesitation, and so caution must not be given up.

Problem # 4 There is no objection in the permissibility of sale of dung if it gives some profit.

As regards the sale of urines of clean animals, there is no objection in the sale of the urine of a camel, but there is objection in the sale of the urine of other (clean animals). It is not far from being permissible if one intends to make some lawful profit (out of the sale of their urine).

Problem # 5 There is no objection in the sale of an object unclean by something else that is liable to be cleaned.

The same is the case with an object that is not liable to be cleaned, when it is lawful to make profit freely by its sale despite its uncleanness, as an unclean oil which may be used in lamps or in rubbing on the boats, or unclean colors (or paints), soaps, etc.

However, the things that are not liable to be cleaned, and their use depends on their cleanness like unclean syrup of honey and vinegar (Sikanjbin), etc., their sale or making them a subject of exchange is not allowed.

Problem # 6 There is no objection in the sale of the antidote (Turyaq) containing the meat of the serpents when it is not proved that they are among the reptiles having spurting blood, and with the assimilation of the meat in the antidote, as is mostly or usually the case, its use and making profit out of it is permissible. But the sale of the antidote containing wine is not allowed, as it cannot be cleaned, and it is also not allowed to make profit (out of its sale) due to the uncleanness, despite having free will that is the criterion for its permissibility, and not its use in case of emergency.

Problem # 7 The sale of cats is allowed, and its sale proceeds are also lawful, without any hesitation. As regards the sale of other beasts, apparently it is also allowed if by sale is intended some lawful profit among the reasonable persons. The same is the case with insects; rather also with deformed animals, if their sale is intended to make profit out of it. This is the criterion (for the permissibility of the sale) of all the types of animals. There is no objection in the sale of the leeches that suck the unwanted blood, as well as the silkworms and bees, although they are among the insects. The same is the case with the elephants whose back and bones are profitable, though they are among the deformed animals.

Problem # 8 The sale of all the instruments meant for prohibited acts when the benefit intended to accrue from them depends solely on them, like the instruments for entertainment, such as lyre, flutes, harps, etc. and the gambling instruments, such as the backgammon, chess, etc. As the sale and purchase of these instruments are forbidden, in the same way their manufacture and hiring them are also forbidden. Rather, it is obligatory to break them and change their shapes. Of course, the sale of their material, for example, wood and copper (used in them) is allowed after they have been broken; rather, even before breaking them too, when a condition is made with their buyer to break them, or when their material is sold to a person who is believed to break them. In case, otherwise there is hesitation (in the permissibility of their sale). The sale of utensils made of gold and silver for the purpose of decoration or acquisition is allowed.

Problem # 9 Dealing in counterfeit or debased Dirhams usually made to deceive people or use them as means of exchange in transactions, when the person to whom they are paid is ignorant (of their being counterfeit or debased), is forbidden. Rather, according to the more cautious, if not stronger opinion, it is forbidden even with the knowledge and information of the person to whom they are paid, except when the transaction relates to their material, and a condition is made with the person to whom they are paid to break them, and he is believed to break them, as it is not far from being obligatory to break the material of eyil and corruption to destroy it even if by instantly breaking it.

Problem # 10 The sale of grapes and dates for preparing wine is forbidden, as well as the sale of wood for any trade or manufacturing an instrument for entertainment or gambling, etc., either by clearly mentioning to use them for prohibited purpose or stipulation to that effect in the agreement or their mutual agreement on it, even if the buyer says to the seller, for example: “(Sell) to me one maund of grapes so that I may prepare wine with them”, and the man sells them to him.

Similarly, (it is forbidden) to rent out houses for selling and storing wine in them, or manufacturing any forbidden articles in them, or rent out boats or other means of conveyance for carrying wine or other forbidden articles in any of the ways mentioned before, as the sale proceeds or the money for renting out of both the things are also unlawful. Similarly, (it is forbidden) to sell timber to a person about whom it is certain that he would manufacture a cross or an idol with it. Likewise, the sale (proceeds of) grapes, dates or timber to a person about whom it is certain that he would make wine, or instruments for gambling or (entertainment like) harps, or renting out houses to a person about whom it is certain that he would make or sell such (forbidden) things mentioned, according to the principles of jurisprudence, though the problem is very difficult to decide according to the textual authorities, as apparently they are Mu'allal.

Problem # 11 The sale of rams to the enemies of (Islamic) faith is forbidden when they are in engaged in war against Muslims; rather, even in case of cessation of relations with them while there is fear (of war) from them. But in case of a peace treaty with them or an internecine war among themselves, it is indispensable to sell arms to them keeping in view the interests of Islam, Muslims and the needs of the hour.

The decision in such case rests with the ruler of the Muslims; no one else has the authority to decide it arbitrarily. All the Muslim sects who bear animosity towards the right sect (i.e., the Shi'ahs) are also affiliated with the infidels. The rule is not far from being extended to comprehend the robbers and their likes.

Rather, it is not far from the rule forbidding sale of arms to be extended to the case of sale of other things to them as well that may be a source of strengthening them against the followers of the true faith, such as necessities of life, means of transport, beasts of burden, etc.

Problem # 12 Drawing pictures of living beings from among human beings and animals is forbidden, when they are in concrete form as are usually made of stones, metals, wood or the like. According to the stronger opinion, it is allowed if they are not in concrete form, though it is more cautious to avoid it. It is allowed to draw pictures of non-living objects such as trees, flowers, etc., even in concrete form. There is no difference in the various forms of pictures whether they are painted, drawn, or embroidered, etc. Taking pictures in modern times with the prevalent (photo-) cameras is allowed. Rather it does not fall under the category of ‘drawing pictures’.

As it is forbidden to make statues of living beings, similarly it is also forbidden to make them a source of earning and charging any fees for them. This rule relates entirely to drawing pictures, but as regards their sale, acquisition, use and looking at them, according to the stronger opinion, they are all allowed, even if they are statues. Of course, it is disapproved to acquire and keep them in the house.

Problem # 13 The performance, listening to and earning through music is forbidden. It is not merely improving one’s voice, but it its prolongation and chant in a special vibrant and quavering tone that may suit the entertainment and music gatherings and accord with the instruments of entertainment. It makes no difference in its performance in Allah’s words in recitation of the holy Quran, or a prayer, an elegy or any other piece of poetry or prose. Rather, the punishment shall be manifold by the its use in what belongs to the obedience of Allah, the Exalted.

Of course, songs of the singing women at the matrimonial functions are an exception, and it is not far from being so. But caution must not be given up by confining to the matrimonial ceremonies and the functions organized before or after them and not every gathering; rather, it is more cautious to refrain from them absolutely.

Problem # 14 Provision of help to the oppressors in their oppression, rather in all forbidden acts, is forbidden without any hesitation. Rather it has come down from the Prophet, May Allah’s Blessings be upon him and his Progeny, saying: “One who goes to help an oppressor, knowing him to be an oppressor, shall be turned outside the pale of Islam”. There is another Tradition from him, saying: “On the Day of Resurrection, there shall be a caller calling: Where are the Oppressors and the Helpers of the Oppressors, including even those who have prepared a pen or ink (-pot) for them.”

He adds: “Then they shall be put together in an iron bier and it shall be thrown into Hell along with them”

As regards helping the oppressors in acts other than the forbidden ones, apparently it is allowed as long as he is not considered among their helpers, followers and affiliated ones, and his name is not noted in their registers and official records, and it may not be instrumental in boosting up their glory and power.

Problem # 15 Preservation of the misguiding books or their manuscripts, their recitation, teaching or learning are forbidden if there is no lawful purpose in them, as when one intends to repudiate, or reject them, and he happens to be one capable of doing so and himself safe from misguidance. However, merely attaining knowledge about them is not among the lawful purposes allowing their preservation for the majority of the people from among the common folk who are afraid of going astray or slipping (from the right path).

It is necessary for such people to keep away from the books containing material repugnant to the beliefs of the Muslims, particularly those containing confusions and erroneous ideas that they are unable to solve or reject. It is not allowed to purchase or keep them, or preserve them. Rather, they are bound to destroy them

Problem # 16 Performance of magic, its teaching and learning as well as earning through it are forbidden. It means an act in the form of writing, words, smoking, picturing, blowing ( knots), or making knots, or the like, that may affect the body of the person subjected to magic, or his heart or intellect, so that it may be effective in calling him, making him asleep or unconscious, producing in him love or hatred, etc.

To this is affiliated employing the angels, calling the jinns and overpowering them, calling the souls (of the dead) and overpowering them, and the like. Affiliated to this or considered to be one of the same is legerdemain, which means showing something unreal occurring with the quick movement (of hands).

Similarly there is divination, and that means foretelling about things to happen in future with the impression that some Jinns are conveying him such news, or with the impression that he comes to know of things from their preliminaries or causes that lead to such occurrences.