It is mentioned in Raddul Muhtar:
بخلاف ما اذا کان علی الحیوان خبث ای نجاسۃ وعلم بھا فانہ ینجس مطلقا
قال فی البحر وقیدنا بالعلم لانھم قالوا فی البقر ونحوہ یخرج حیا لا یجب نزح شیئ
وان کان الظاھرا شتمال بولھا علیٰ افخاذھا لکن یحتمل طھارتھا بان سقطت عقب دخولھا
ماء کثیرا مع ان الاصل الطھارۃ ا ھ ومثلہ فی " الفتح "اھ.
From this statement of Durr-e-Mukhtar, it is evident that
unless there is no definite evidence of something being impure, the ruling regarding
it being impure will not be given, even if apparently it is said to be impure,
so in regards to the water of the Huqqa; unless it cannot be confirmed
definitely that it is impure, it cannot be regarded as being impure. Leave alone
it being definitely confirmed as being impure, in the case (of the Huqqa),
there is not even an assumption or thought of it being impure. It will only be
regarded as being impure, if there is definite confirmation that it was contaminated
by impurity mixing in it or touching it and both these are absent, so it will
be regarded as remaining in its natural state of purity. This is our objective
(i.e. it has been already explained, but I must further say), that every person
knows well, that this is the same water which was pure and purifying before it
was put into the Huqqa. However, if one refreshed (prepared) the Huqqa with
impure water (i.e. already contaminated with impurity), or there was impurity
in that Huqqa, or afterwards some impurity got into that water, be it inside
the Huqqa, or after taking it out (of the Huqqa) then in all such cases it will
undoubtedly be regarded as being impure. Who can ever be of the opinion that
such water is pure? Instead of the Huqqa, if a clay pot or jug etc is impure
then the ruling of the water being impure will also apply here; no sane and intelligent
person can say that the water of a pot or the jug will be regarded as being
absolutely impure (in such a case) because this impurity of the water is only
because the pot or the jug was impure (thus the water became contaminated, so
one cannot say that the jug water is impure), and it is not so that the water
is regarded as impure because it was kept in a pot or a jug (but it was because
of impurity in that particular pot or jug). Similarly (in the case of the Huqqa),
the water will only be regarded as being impure if the utensil has impurity in
it or if some impurity contaminated (i.e. mixed in) the water. It cannot be
said, that because it is a Huqqa, it is reason for the water to be impure. The
argument that we are presenting here is that, the smoke of the Huqqa passing
over the water will not cause the water to become impure, so when this is the
same water which was pure from before and now its qualities have changed due to
the passage of time and smoke, then it must be said that if the changing of the
qualities is the cause of it becoming impure, then it will be necessary that
milkshake, juices, rose essence, fragrant essence, tea, gravy and that water in
which saffron or Shihaab have been put or all those things which cause the
quality of the water to be altered, will all be regarded as having become
impure and this is intuitively baseless, so it has been proven that it (water)
will not be regarded as becoming impure, by just anything mixing in it but for
it to be regarded as Najis (impure), it is necessary for the impurity to have
contact with it.
So firstly, (those who oppose the ruling) should first
prove that the (said) tobacco is impure and then they should prove that the
smoke also according to Shariah is impure. Only thereafter they should declare
it being impure. It is well known even to every child in India that tobacco is
the leaf of a tree in which some things are mixed and people, eat, smoke and
inhale it. Here also, the same applies that the leaves are not impure. As for
the other ingredients such as syrup or other ingredients that are added to it for
fragrance or other benefits, such as ‘Sumbulut Teeb (Nardostachys jatamansi), pineapple, Amaltas (a kind of fruit), Jujube, jackfruit etc. and
none of these things are regarded as being Najis, so (this) tobacco is still
regarded as being pure.
It must however be said that if eating or smoking it
causes one to lose consciousness or such a condition then due to becoming weak,
to eat and smoke it to such an extent is regarded as Haraam as it has been
mentioned:
نھیٰ رسول اللہ صلّی اللہ تعالٰی علیہ وسلم عن کل مسکر ومفتر .
It must be noted that being Haraam is one thing and being
Najis is another issue. Even to eat sand to the extent of it causing harm is also
Haraam, whereas sand is pure and is regarded as a purifyingagent. There are
numerous Juziyaat in the books of Fiqh which mention the eating of many things
in excessiveness to be Haraam but those things are regarded as being pure. It
is in Tanweerul Absaar والمسک طاہر
حلال . and
based on this, the author of Raddul Muhtar has mentioned that:
زاد قولہ حلال لانہ لا یلزم من الطھارۃ الحل کما فی التراب "
منح " ا ی فان التراب طاھر ولا یحل اکلہ۔
When Tobacco is regarded as being Paak (pure), how then
can its smoke be regarded as being impure? A thing that is pure is something
which is by itself regarded as pure. In regards to the ruling on smoke, the
Hanafi Jurists have mentioned that as long as the effect of that impure thing
is not evident in it, it will be regarded as being pure. It is mentioned in
Raddul Muhtar:
اذا ا حرقت العذرۃ فی بیت فاصاب ماء الطابق ثوب انسان لا یفسدہ استحسانا
مالم یظھر اثر النجاسۃ فیہ
وکذا الاصطبل اذا کان حارا وعلیٰ کوتہ طابق اوکان فیہ کوز معلق فیہ ماء فترشح وکذا
الحمام لو فیھا نجاسات فعرق حیطانھا وکواتھا وتقاطر۔
It is in Fatawa Alamgiri:
دخان النجاسۃ اذا اصاب الثوب اوالبدن الصحیح انہ لا ینجسہ ھکذا فی
" السراج الوھاج " وفی الفتاویٰ اذا احرقت العذرۃ فی بیت فعلا دخانہ
وبخارہ الیٰ الطابق وانعقد ثم ذاب وعرق الطابق فاصاب ماؤہ ثوبا لا یفسد استحسانا
مالم یظہر اثر النجاسۃ وبہ افتی الامام ابوبکر محمد بن الفضل کذا فی "
الفتاوی الغیاثیۃ " وکذا الاصطبل اذا کان حارا وعلیٰ کوتہ طابق او بیت
البالوعۃ اذا کان علیہ طابق فـعرق الطابق وتقاطر وکذا الحمام اذا احرق فیھا
النجاسۃ فعرق حیطانھا وکواہا وتقاطر کذا فی " فتاویٰ قاضیخان ".
Naushaadar (Amoni
Chloridium) which is made from gathering the steam
of unclean substances is regarded as being pure by the Ulama. It is in Raddul
Muhtar اما
النوشادرالمستجمع من دخان النجاسۃ فہو طاہر.
From these quotations, it has been well proven through
the Just and compliant Fuqaha (Jurists) that the water from the Huqqa is pure.
As for this ignorant reservation, that if it is pure then why do we not drink
it? (It must then be said) that mucus from the nose is also regarded as being
Paak (pure), so why is it not eaten? Saliva is also pure, but why do we not
just drink it? Even opium and cannabis are also not regarded as impure, so will
you smoke it? When paak things are to the degree of being Haraam, then
according to temperament how hard is it for it to be Makruh and disliked. These
are all the proofs which I have furnished. Now, those who regard it as being impure
should also present there evidence and show from which Verse of the Qur’an,
which Hadith or which authentic book, they can prove this; and when there is no
(proof) from anyone of these then will this not be regarded as levelling a
false charge against the Shariah or not? Muslims should abstain from making
false charges against the Shariah. Allah bless them with guidance and Taufeeq! Aameen
As for the issue of it (the Huqqa) water being a
purifying agent (i.e. can be used for purification as mentioned in the
inception of this discussion), then it must be noted that this argument is
based on the ruling of ‘Maa-e-Mutlaq’ (Natural water), because Wudu and Ghusl with
Mutlaq water is permissible. It not from ‘Muqay’yad’ (i.e. restricted water) کما ھو مصرح فی المتون
so, we will first explain what is ‘Mutlaq’
water, by which one will be able to easily make a distinction between ‘Mutlaq’
and ‘Muqay’yad’ waters. The comprehensive definition of ‘Mutlaq’ which does not
challenge the recognized Juziyaat, is that which has been presented in the bookرسالہ النور و النورق
by Sayyidi wa Sanadi, Mustanadi, The
Mujaddid of the Century, Aala Hazrat ◌ wherein he states: ‘Mutlaq water is water which remains in its natural thin
form (i.e. with its natural fluidity), and any such thing which is more or
equivalent to it in volume has not been mixed in it. Nor has any such other
such thing been mixed in it, that after been mixed, it will be regarded as some
other thing, for some other purpose, causing the name of the water to be
changed, such as if it is now called, juice, lassi (milk drink), Nabeez (date
drink) or ink etc.’
All its branches and issues have been explained in two
stanzas:
مطلق آبے ست
کہ بر رقت طبعی خود است نہ درو
مزج دگر چیز مساوی یا بیش
نہ بخلطے
کہ بہ ترکیب
شود چیز دگر کہ
بود ز آب جدا در لقب و مقصد خویش
For further reassurance, I also felt it appropriate to give the definition
regarding the restrictions as well, so that the one, who is making the claim,
may understand it without difficulty. The first condition and restriction is
that the natural fluidity should remain.
In this regard it is in Shabia ala Zail’ee as follows:
الماء المطلق مابقی علی اصل خلقتہ من الرقۃ والسیلان فلواختلط بہ
طاہر اوجب غلظہ صار مقیدا۔
It is mentioned in the Fatwa of Faqih An Nafs Qadi Khan:
لو وقع الثلج فی الماء وصار ثخینا غلیظا لا یجوز بہ التوضوء لانہ
بمنزلۃ الجمد وان لم یصر ثخینا جاز۔
Similarly, it is in Khania and Fatawa Alamgiri
لوبل الخبز بالماء وبقی رقیقا جاز بہ الوضوء.
It is in Khania
ماء صابون وحرض ان بقیت رقتہ ولطافتہ جاز التوضوء بہ.
Muhaqqiq alal Itlaaq Imam Ibn Humaam states in Fathul Qadeer
فی " الینابیع " لو نقع الحمص والباقلاء وتغیر لونہ وطعمہ
وریحہ یجوز التوضی بہ فان طبخ فان کان اذا برد وثخن لا یجوز الوضوء بہ اولم یثخن
ورقۃ الماء باقیۃ جاز۔
It is also further mentioned in the same book as follows:
لا باس بماء السیل مختلطا بالطین ان کانت رقۃ الماء غالبۃ فان کان
الطین غالبا فلا .
It is in Bada’i of Imam Malikul Ulama as follows:
لو تغیر الماء بالطین او بالتراب یجوز التوضوء بہ.
It is stated as follows in Muniya:
یجوز الطھارۃ بماء خالطہ شیئ طاہر فغیر احد اوصافہ کماء المد والماء
الذی اختلط بہ الزعفران بشرط ان یکون الغلبۃ للماء من حیث الاجزاء ولم یزل عنہ اسم
الماء وان یکون رقیقا بعد فحکمہ حکم الماء المطلق۔
It is in the Fatwa of Imam Gharbi Tamartaashi:
ماء الصابون لو رقیقا یسیل علی العضو یجوز الوضوء بہ وکذا لو اغلی
بالاشنان وان ثخن لا کما فی " البزازیۃ ".
In brief, just these few statements are sufficient to
clarify the ruling, and similar to this, there are numerous others in the books
of Fiqh which mention that once the fluidity and thinness of the water is lost,
it is not suitable for Wudu and Ghusl any longer. The second restriction or
condition is that such a thing should not be mixed with it, which is more or
equal in volume, such as the essence of ‘Gauzuban’ (onosma bracteatum) or
‘kyawra’ (fragrant plant), rose essence and willow musk essence etc. which does
not have fragrance and which does not have any real taste. It these are mixed
in the water, then as long as the water is more in quantity, the Wudu is permissible
otherwise not.
It is in Bahrur Raa’iq:
ان کان مائعا موافقا للماء فی الاوصاف الثلثۃ کالماء الذی یؤخذ
بالتقطیر من لسان الثور وماء الورد الذی انقطعت رائحتہ اذا اختلط فالعبرۃ للاجزاء
فان کان الماء المطلق اکثرجاز الوضوء بالکل وان کان مغلوبا لا یجوزو ان استویا لم
یذکر فی ظاہر الروایۃ وفی البدائع قالوا حکمہ حکم الماء المغلوب احتیاطا۔
It is in Durr-e-Mukhtar
لو ( کان المخالط ) مائعا فلو مباینا لاوصافہ فبتغیر اکثرھا اوموافقا
کلبن فبأحدھا او مماثلا کمستعمل فبالاجزاء فان المطلق اکثر من النصف جاز التطھیر
بالکل والا لا۔
It is in Hindiya
وان کان لا یخالفہ فیھما تعتبر فی الاجزاء وان استویا فی الاجزاء لم
یذکر فی ظاہر الروایۃ قالوا حکمہ حکم الماء المغلوب احتیاطا ھکذا فی "
البدائع ".
The third restriction and condition is that such a thing
should not be mixed in it which causes it to become something other than water,
and its use is for some other purpose, whereby it is given some other name
instead of water, be this by boiling it after adding something to it, such as
soup and gravy etc. which is now not classified as water any longer.
It is mentioned in Mukhtasar Al Qudoori, Hidaya and
Sharah Wiqaaya and other well-known books: '' لا
یجوز بالمرق.''
It is in Bahrur Raa’iq
'' لا یتوضؤ بماء تغیر بالطبخ بما لا یقصد
التنظیف کماء المرق والباقلاء لانہ لیس بماء مطلق ''
Also if one did not cook anything in it but even if one
just mixed something in it such as juice of honey or shakr misri.
It is in Hidaya etc.
'' لا یجوز بالا شربہ ''
Regarding this, it has been mentioned in Inaaya,
Kifaayah, Binaaya and Ghaya as follows:
ان اراد بالاشربۃ الحلو المخلوط بالماء کالدبس والشھد المخلوط بہ
کانت للماء الذی غلب علیہ غیرہ .
0 comments:
Post a Comment