| المستخلص: |
This research paper addresses the Prophet’s refraining from certain acts and its relevance upon rulings. The paper comprises an introduction, four discussions and a conclusion containing the most important results. -The first discussion: This section includes the definition of sunna and a clarification of its types, in terms of their issuance from Prophet. This discussion is further divided into three sub-sections. -The second discussion. This section includes a definition of «refraining from action» and whether this is considered an act in itself. This section is further divided into two sub-sections. The researcher concludes that refraining from an act is an act in itself as maintained not only by the majority of scholars, but in fact by scholarly consensus. -The third discussion: This section includes the types of «refraining» reported to have been exercised by the Prophet; in it, the researcher contends the following. 1- What is meant by the issue in question are the specific acts which the Prophet refrained from performing and not because this was from his natural disposition, nor those which pertained only to him, or reflected a legal ruling or those from which he desisted for any specific reason. It refers to those acts which he refrained from doing and which were not accompanied by a specific prohibition nor were they subsumed under a more general prohibition. 2- Those acts which the Prophet refrained from by reason of a natural disposition do not evidence either a prohibition or dislike towards the act. Rather, they are among the things which are permissible to refrain from doing and there is no blame on a person who either performs or omits them. 3- There is no harm in omitting those acts which the Prophet refrained from performing because they specifically pertained to him. However, this must not be because a person believes that they are either disliked or prohibited. 4- A person is obliged to follow the example of the Prophet and refrain from doing that which the Prophet refrained from performing for the purpose of clarifying or exemplifying a legal ruling. 5- A person must refrain from doing those acts which the Prophet refrained from doing for some particular reason, in the case of the presence of that same reason. When that reason is absent, the ruling reverts to its default status. -The fourth discussion: This section discusses the Prophet’s refraining from acts through which one may draw nearer to Allah. It section is divided into four issues: 1- Clarifying that the Scholarly difference of opinion is concerned with those non-ritual acts from which the Prophet refrained despite there being a reason for, and no impediments to, their performance. 2- Clarifying the reason behind the scholarly differences on this matter, and that it is based on their difference over the specification of the meaning of bid’a (innovation in religion). The researcher has determined the following: • A bid’a that is deemed reprehensible by Islamic law is one for which there is no specific or general evidence in Islamic law. • Any newly introduced matter for which there is a specific or general evidence in the Qur'an, sunna, consensus of scholars, analogy or non- Prophetic reports, though it may be lexically referred to as a bid’a (innovation) is not considered a reprehensible bid’a in the religion. • This sub-section offers a detailed discussion of the various positions of scholars, the evidences and arguments they use and a statement of the strongest opinion. The researcher sides with the opinion that permits the performance of the acts which the Prophet did not do, arguing that it does not contravene the sunna and is not considered a bid’a provided it does not contravene a legal text. This is the preponderant opinion. • This section discusses an example of thepractical application of such an issue- celebrating the birth of the Prophet- illustrating scholarly differences of opinion. - In the conclusion, the researcher states that for an act which a Muslim performs intending to draw closer to Allah, the Prophet’s refraining from it is not evidence for its prohibition or disliking as long as there is no specific or general text indicating this. This is especially so concerning those acts which are classified under one of the Principles of Islamic law. If it were the case that all acts that were not performed during the Prophet’s lifetime, and only occurred after that time are considered reprehensible bid’a, they would have all been prohibited but this is not the case. The fact that the Prophet did not do a certain act indicates, of course, that it is not obligatory to perform it and therefore its performance is permissible as is refraining from it, hence the legal axiom: "That which is permissible to refrain from is certainly not obligatory." There is no doubt that following the Prophet’s example in everything he did is the means for attaining success, happiness and salvation both in this world and in the Hereafter. However, we cannot prohibit those things which he neither forbade nor performed. \
|
