Date: 11-14, February 2000
Venue: Darul Uloom-ul Islamia Basti, U. P.

The 3 day long twelfth seminar of the Islamic Fiqh Academy was held on 11-14 February at Darul Uloom-ul Islamia (Basti), Uttar Pradesh (India). No less then 200 eminent and renowned scholars from the length and breadth of the country and abroad as well graced the occasion.

The notable delegates from abroad include:

• Sheikh Abdur Rahman Al-Rajihi
• Sheikh Nasir As-Shimali
• Shikh Yahya Al-Yahya
• Sheikh Mohmmad As-Shanqiti and
• Sheikh Dr. Mohammad Al-Dosravi amongst others

The Differences Amongst the Different Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence

One of the foremost issues which was discussed at the 12^th Fiqh Seminar of the Islamic Fiqh Academy held between 11-14 February 2000 at the Darul Uloom-ul Islamia (Basti) was the “ Stand of Shariah on the differences amongst the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence.” A total of 37 papers were received by the Academy. The abridged forms of the aforesaid papers were presented before the delegates. After some in-depth and thread-bare discussion, a committee was formed comprising of the following members:

1. Maulana Zubair Ahmad Qasmi

2. Maulana Yaqub Ismail Munshi

3. Maulana Mahfooz-ur-Rahman Shaheen Jamali

4. Mufti Naseem Ahmad Qasmi

5. Maulana Ahmad Develvi

6. Maulana Abu Sufiyan Miftahi

7. Maulana Ab-ul-Aas Waheedi

8. Maulana Akhtar Imam Adil (Convenor)

After the thorough and in-depth discussion amongst the delegates attending the Seminar, over the resolutions presented by the committee, the following resolutions were adopted unanimously.

1. The provisions of the Shariah are of two kinds:
   
   Mansoos (specified) and Ghair Mansoos (unspecified). The unspecified Sharai provisions are those precepts of the Shariah which have been indubitably mentioned in the Quran and the Sunnah while the unspecified provisions are ones which are related to the deduction and the ijtihad of the eminent jurists of the Ummah. Undoubtedly, the euthritative interpretations and deductions of the Islamic scholars and jurists are indeed a precious treasure for us and an indispensible part of the Islamic Shariah.

2. The difference in opinions amongst the Islamic jurists is not merely black or white or that of truth and falsehood, rather a large number of the disputed issues are due to difference in views with respect to “Afzal, Ghair Afzal, Rajih and Ghair Rajih.” In other issues, the nature of difference is such that one opinion is correct with the apprehension that it may be wrong and the other opinion is wrong with the liklihood of its being correct.

3. A comman man who is ignorant of the Quran, the Sunnah and the rules of Shariah is required to consult any reliable and authentic religious scholar regarding the viewpoints of Shariah and fulfil the obligations of the Shariah accordingly.

4. It is absolutely impermissible to condemn and criticise the different juristic schools or their followers or to refute them straightaway or to make the mockery of their juristic deductions and inferences. It is indeed a cause of enormous misfortune for any Muslim in both the worlds.

5. Tolerance, respect and regard, the attitude of being considerate towards the place and status of the scholars of different schools of thought and honouring their esteemed works have been the hallmark of the virtuos predecessors, in the matters of any sort of disagreement in viewpoints. These people have kept these high moral values in mind during academic debates and dialogues. Indeed, the exemplary deportment adopted by the virtuous people has set an illuminating example for all of us. The entire Ummah ought to following their path and take up a balanced view in case of confrontation.

6. In the eventuality of the society getting into a serious trouble because of the changing times and circumstances and it seems difficult and troublesome to act upon according to the one of the Fiqhi recommendations of one of the juristic schools while the recommendation of another school, in this regard, is feasible and in tune with the prevailing conditions, under such circumstances, the scholars and jurists who are purely pious and God-fearing besides having through knowledge, are allowed to give a “Fatwa” on the lines which maked the things easy. Infact, on such sensitive issues, it is preferable to resort to the collective deliberations rather than given out Fatwas individually.

7. Such issues upon which a section of renowned scholars and jurists feels the need adopt another opinion and accepts a particular Fiqhi recommendation to get rid of the taxing situation and issues a “Fatwa” in this regard whereas the other group differs from it and sees no necessity at all to accept this particular Fiqh recommendation, under such circumstances, the comman people are permitted to adopt the former recommendation which has been justifiably called and is an easy and facilitating way. It is quite permissible for the “Fatwa-givers” to issue Fatwas accordingly.

The issue of Talaq-e-Sakran (Talaq in a state of intoxication) was amply discussed and pondered over during the twelfth Fiqh Seminar held under the aegis of the Islamic Fiqh Academy between 11-14 February 2000 A. D. corresponding to 5-8- Zilqada 1420 Hijri at the Darul Uloom- Islamia, Basti (U. P.). 74 papers were received by the Academy regarding this issue. Their precis was presented before the delegates. The following resolutions were passed after an intensive and in-depth debate amongst the delegates attending the Seminar. Five clauses of this resolution were unanimously accepted by all the delegates while a difference in opinion surfaced up with regards to the sixth clause. The details are as mentioned hereunder:

1. A person consumes an impermissible intoxicant unknowingly and he becomes inebriated thereafter. Under such a condition, if he gives “Talaq” to his wife then the Talaq would not hold good.

2. A person consumes an impermissible intoxicant as a drug in such a situation where the specialist Muslim physicians feel that the treatment of the ailment could be carried out only with that drug or in the other case where he consumes an intoxicating substance because of an unavoidable need for food or water (in the event of not getting any permissible substance) in order to save his life and gets intoxicated. In such a situation of intoxication, if the person gives Talaq to his wife, it would not hold good.

3. In case a person is forced to consume liquor or any other intoxicating substance or such a situation of duress and coersion is created wherein it gets permissible for him to consume an impermissible substance. Under such circumstances, he consumes the intoxicant and gets inebriated in the process, during this period, if he gives “Talaq” to his wife, it wouldn’t hold good.

4. If a person gets intoxicated by consuming a permissible substance and in such a situation, if he gives “Talaq” to his wife, it would not hold good from the point of view of Shariah.

5. A person consumes liquor or any impermissible intoxicating substance knowingly on his own and thereafter he goes into a state of inebriation. However, if he is in the initial state whereby a slight dizziness hovers while his senses are intact, under such circumstances, if he gives “Talaq” to his wife, then the “Talaq” would certainly hold good.

6. Nevertheless, if the dizziness takes the form of an intense intoxicated condition and the person concerned loses his senses and control, under such a situation, if he utters the word “Talaq”, the delegates hold two different views on the point whether the Talaq will be legally valid or not.

1. The following scholars are in favour of the Talaq holding good.

1. Maulana Burhanuddin Sambhali

2. Mufti Abdur Rahman, Delhi

3. Mufti Mahboob Ali Waheehi.

4. Mufti Habeebullah Qasmi.

5. Maulana Abu Sufiyan Miftahi.

6. Maulana Mehfoozur Rahman Shaheen Jamali.

7. Maulana Abu Bakar Qasmi

8. Maulana Abu Jandal.

9. Maulana Akhtar Imam Adil.

10. Maulana Tanveer Alam Qasmi

11. Maulana Abdul lateer Palanpuri

12. Mufti Saeedur Rahaman, Mumbai

13. Maulana Abdul Qaiyyum.

14. Maulana Abdullah Muzahiri, Basti.

15. Qazi Kamil Sb.

16. Maulana Nazeer Ahmad Kashmiri.

17. Maulana Ahmad Develvi.

18. Maulana Jamaluddin

19. Mohammed Hamza, Gorakhpur.

20. Maulana Abrar Khan Nadvi.

2. Apart from the above mentioned delegates, rest of the participants are of the opinion that under the aforesaid condition, the Talaq does not hold good, whatsoever. The prominent ones amongst them are:

1. Maulana Qazi Mujahidul Islam Qasmi.

2. Maulana Syed Nizamuddin (Ameer-e-Shariat Bihar and Orissa)

3. Maulana Yaqub Ismail Munshi

4. Qazi Abdul Jaleel.

5. Maulana Obaidullah Asadi.

6. Maulana Ateeq Ahmad Qasmi

7. Maulana Abul Aas Waheedi.

8. Mufti Junaid Alam Nadvi (Mufti Imarat-e-Shariah Bihar & Orissa)

9. Maulana Mohammad Salman Husaini Nadvi.

10. Maulana Khaleelur Rahman Sajjad Nomani

11. Maulana Zubair Ahmad Qasmi.

12. Mufti Jameel Ahmad Nazeeri

13. Maulana Sutan Ahmed Islahi

14. Maulana Sabahuddin Malik.

15. Mufti Naseem Ahmad Qasmi.

16. Maulana Khursheed Ahmad Qasmi.

17. Maulana Shafeeq Ahmad Muzahiri, Bardawan.

18. Maulana Mubarak Husain Nadvi, Nepal.

19. Maulana Khursheed Anwar Azami.

20. Maulana Ijaz Ahmad Qasmi.

21. Maulana Qari Zafarul Islam.

22. Maulana Rashid Hussain Nadvi.

23. Maulana Riyaz Ahmad Salafi.

24. Maulana Asrarul Haque Sabeeli.

One of the foremost topics which were discussed at the 12^th Fiqh Seminar or the islamic Fiqh Academy (held during 11-14 February, 2000 at Darul Uloom Islamia, Basti, U. P), pertained to the utilization of Internet and other contemporary communication networks for religious and Dawah purposes. The Academy received around 38 papers on this topic, which were duly abridged and presented before the delegates. After several heated rounds of debates and discussions and serious deliberations over the suggestions made by the following members of the Committee:

1. Qazi Abdul Jaleel.

2. Maulana Saeedur Rahman.

3. Maulana Noorul Haque Rahmani

4. Maulana Riyaz Ahmad Salfi.

5. Mufti Mohammed Zaid.

6. Maulana Zubair Ahmad.

The following resolutions were unanimously passed:

1. The Muslim Ummah is dutibound to make all possible efforts and strive to spread the word of Allah apart from protecting and preserving the identity of Islam.

2. As per………………………………………, it is absolutely correct and appropriate to employ both traditional as well as contemporary means to fulfil our duties. Infact, it is required to employ the beneficial and effective means as the circumstances demand.

3. There is no harm in using the modern means of communication for religious purposes whether it is in the form of listening to the programmes or in the form of, practically, participating in the programmes or establishing one’s own radio station.

4. Infact, the Internet has emerged as the most important means of communication. It is a super means or method to convey our message to others. In order to ascertain the validity of a means or mode from the point of view of Shariah, it ought to be seen that for which objectives is it being used. The use of a means or mode is permissible for permissible objectives and vice-versa from the angle of Shariah. Only then it will be decided that the achievement of these goals is Farz, Wajib, Mustahab or Mubah. And the extent to which the use of these means is indispensible in the quest for achieving the objectives shall determine the sharai status of the use of those means of communication i.e. it is Farz, Mustahab or Jaiz.

In the light of these principles, the participants of the Seminar observed that the use of Internet as a means of religious, Sharai, Dawah and collective prosperity is quite permissible and at times, vital as a means of communication.

It is also necessary to avoid forbidden and reprehensible acts in the process of presentation and display.

5. The television is a marvellous means of communication by virtue of which one can, not listen to the voice but see the faces of the people all over the world too. Sometimes, the motion pictures are telecasted live on the television or the telecast of any conference, event, sports activity or function is recorded and preserved in video cassettes and telecasted later on.

On peculiar problem with the television is that whether the pictures which are shown to the viewers through this medium fall under the same category of picturing and portraying which is prohibited by the Hadith of the Prophet (SAW) or do not fall. Generally, the scholars from India feel that the Photographs taken with such type of cameras (motion pictures) are also a part of the prohibited ones. Some of the Scholars from Arab countries are of the view that the Camera photography doesn’t come under the prohibited pictures category.

The second troublesome aspect of television is it’s misuse.

In the veil of entertainment, enjoyment and advertisements, the dignity of women is being outraged. Vulgarity and bawdiness has become a comman phenomenon. Furthermore, such morally denigrating movies and soaps are being aired on the television which simply cannot be watched by a family sitting together or else they face tremendous embarasment. The children get so much infatuated by the T. V. programmes that their interest in academics and books dwindles steadily. These vices are just like the tip of an iceberg. They have been brought about by the television making itself a curse on the society. No doubt, the television can be employed for certain constructive and beneficial takes. However, it’s negative impact on the society at large far exceeds the virtuous and constructive gains it provides.

Under these circumstances, the participants of the Seminar call it’s use plus the vulgarities and obscenities it breeds as highly impermissible and a medium of destruction for the society and, thereby, instruct the populace to avoid it’s baneful use.

6. Another pertinent question relates to those channels which have been established with the sole pious objective of religion and Dawah and those which are in the process of being launched. Is the establishment and drawing benefits from such channels which are free from all sorts of vulgarities and obscenities permissible or not?

Almost all the participants of the Seminar have voted in favour of it while a handful of them do not favour it even under such conditions. Their names have been mentioned below:

1. Maulana Abdul Lateef Palanpuri

2. Maulana Abdul Qayyum Palanpuri

3. Maulana Abdur Rahman Palanpuri

4. Maulana Mohammed Hamza Gorakhpuri

5. Maulana Mufti Mohammed Zaid

6. Maulana Zubair Ahmad of Muzahirul Uloom.

In the opinion of Maulana Burhanuddin Sambhali and Maulana Arshad Qasmi Farooqui, the telecast is permissible if it is live and impermissible if the programme is recorded, preserved and then aired.