-
Causing Others To Do A Sin By Doing A Sin, Or A Generic Halal
hello there my question is that in this thread
as it’s said that if someone does sin, and knows that his doing sin will cause others to sin then he’ll bear the burden of sin adding up.
then when I’m doing something generic like giving my phone to my Hindu friend for use, I know that he along with other uses will also definitely use it for shirk purposes that are his religious sentiments, like using the phone to look at pictures of idols and getting worship sentiments or reading books to act upon his religion which is based on shirk etc. but here we say a person is not responsible for what others do.
one thing is same in these 2 examples, me knowing that my action will cause other to do sin. the only difference is that my action in itself is Haram in itself, and a generic halal in the other, when it comes to the nature of act
PS. there was an error in that thread, my reply wasn’t being posted in that thread that’s why this thread was made
-
32 Replies
-
Causing Others To Do A Sin By Doing A Sin, Or A Generic Halal
updated 19 hours ago
2 Members
·
32
Replies
-
The difference is of Munkar and a religiously wrong thing.
Munkar is an an acknowledged evil like cheating murdering etc. If one assists in it he is sinful.
But Shirk is not that kind of Munkar. It is the matter between God and the person. And you are not directly assisting to maintain Shirk.
-
“and you are not directly assisting to maintain Shirk”
to maintain Shirk, you mean that if someone helps the other person with intention to help him achieve shirk, right?
like if I drop someone to a place where I know he’ll go there and do somethings halal but also something’s Haram like shirk. but if intention is not to help him in achieving shirk but rather help him in achieving that which is halal, then it’s no problem. right?
-
-
Right
-
@Irfan76 sir i have a question that. if for example i have a Hindu friend that says that “Whatever help of humans i do, i do it for the sake of our lord krishna, whenever i help someone i have this intention to please lord krishna “.
now sir if i know that this Hindu friend, has made an intention that what ever help he does of humanity, he has intention to please his false god. so every act of help he does he associates it with his god, which makes his act a shirk and wrong act.
now sir at an instance if I’m stuck at a place or in a situation where I need his assistance, or even if I’m not stuck, i just want him to help me so that i get a relief of a situation. i am saying this, so that he helps me, but the problem is that the moment he helps me his act will be Haram too. will i get sin if after knowing this i ask for his help, wanting him to help me?
-
The principle is, no one is responsible for the actions of others.
-
@Irfan76 sir there’s a confusion in my mind.
in the example I sited above. the moment his actions manifest, the sin will manifest too because of his intention. and we want him to do this act. will we be counted as “wanting other person to do Haram?” or not.
and in this example there was a confusion between 2 principle, about which one to give preference here. one principle is “no one is responsible for others action” the other principle is “do not help in sin and transgression”.
and there’s another example if a taxi driver picks a man and the man says him to drop him at a temple. scholars in this example give preference to “do not help in sin and transgression” principle. and say this is Haram for driver. are the scholars correct here? or is other principle going to apply here?
sir can you please explain me how to distinguish between where which principle is to be applied?
-
-
Do not Help in sin is about Haq talfi and Zyadiati. On the other hand, Muslims are allowed to marry a Christian girl who is a polytheist and she is allowed to perform her religious prayer in a Muslim man’s house with all the facilities she is provided with. The sin of beliefs is a matter between individuals and God. We do our job and let the people do theirs.
-
Sir there’s a question in my mind,
As Zina is Haram and a major sin, touching opposite gender with lust is minor sin because it leads the person to Zina. so at any instance, a person is not allowed to touch a woman with lust, regardless of whether Zina happens or not.
Now if I give someone money (or even if I don’t give him money but he got it from someone else). but in my heart I’m wishing that “this man uses his money to go and do Zina” then I would be sinful for my wish of Haram to happen I guess.
by the same token if I wish/want for someone to go and touch a woman with lust I’ll be sinful for this too, because I’m wanting the other person to do a minor sin.
if there is a Hindu person who whenever takes a ride on vehicle, on reaching his destination. he praises his Krishna God. he does it so much that now it has become a habit for him, he does it always almost. as him taking ride on a vehicle directly leads him(always leads him) to do Shirk by the end of ride. on sadde zariya principle, his action of ‘taking a ride on vehicle’ will be minor sin for him too. because for him… it always leads him to the shirk.
now if I decide to meet this person at a location and I call him to reach this destination by taking such such vehicles and such routes. and in my heart I’m wishing/wanting that he takes such ride, then such ride, then such bus, then such rickshaw, so that he ultimately reaches here and we do our meeting. will I be sinful for “wanting him to do something which is minor sin… FOR HIM (because it directly, everytime leads him to do shirk”
-
It is the same case we discussed before. If the source to lead to a major sin is direct, inappropriate in itself it is sin, if the source is indirect, then there is no problem in adopting it as there can be nothing in this world which indirectly may not lead or help one or another person to a sin.
-
@Irfan76 no no sir , here my question was that in the example above , for his case only, will his taking riding vehicles be sinful as well? and Secondly if I have “a wish/want that he takes such and such vehicle then come through such route to reach here”.
in short will I be sinful for “wanting the other person to do something that is sin them”? this thing would only happen in above case if his riding vehicles is sin (I mean the sin starts from this action) and I’m wanting this to happen. in this way I wanted to ask what would be the ruling on me??
-
The action in itself is not a sin, but your intention is sinful, therefore you earned a sin.
-
-
@Irfan76 sir just for a easy understanding I’ll give you example of another scenario.
[Ahmad knows that if he wishes in heart that some other person does a prohibited act then this becomes a sin on Ahmad himself. ]
he has a friend Rajesh, whenever Rajesh eats any sweet he says shirk words for his gods praises. and this happens everytime, Rajesh says then same way as a Muslim says Dua. immediately after eating sweet, he immediately says these shirk words. Ahmad knows about this.
once ahmad invited Rajesh to his home, and he presented some sweets “wanting/wishing in his heart that Rajesh eats the sweets” so that he likes it and their friendship deepens more. but he realized that what if he’s doing the sin mentioned in the first paragraph? the sin of “wishing the other person to do an act which is prohibited”.
That’s because for Rajesh, eating sweets always causes him to say shirk. so what if by the principle or hukum of “la taqrabu”, For Rajesh, this act of eating sweets is prohibited? because it always causes him Shirk.
Ahmad doesn’t wish that Rajesh does shirk.
but this scenario makes ahmad worried that what if, for Rajesh, that eating sweets act is prohibited (due to principle of “la taqrabu” and Sadd e Zariya). and Ahmad here presents sweets and “wishes for Rajesh to do this act (of eating sweets), what if ahmad falls in the sin mentioned in first paragraph?
-
This is not included in la taqrabu. it is not a direct cause of Shirk like making idols or painting polytheistic pictures. eating is a causal thing. Islam allows one to marry a Christian woman who does shirk in a Muslim home. If it is allowed, inviting your friend to a meal is allowed, too. His personal acts are is his problem, not yours.
-
@Irfan76 sir actually Ghamidi Sahab while explaining the lecture about the part of ayah where “la taqrabu ” is written. he told that a person himself has to apply this la taqrabu scenario on himself and he has to look for himself that whatever things that which if he does will suck him towards Zina in a way that is difficult to break out from it’s shackles and there’s a high risk of falling in Zina.
he further gave an example, that a person who goes in a bus and he finds out there only one seat left, which in beside a lady. and he knows that if he goes there then he’ll start getting sucked in towards Zina.
actually this example made me think that if a normal mundane act of sitting beside a woman can become prohibited based on if it will suck him towards Zina or not. if it does then it’s “la taqrabu”, if it doesn’t suck him into Zina with a strong impulse then it’s not ‘la taqrabu ‘ for him.(if a person knows that he won’t get strong, difficult to control impulses towards Zina because the lady sitting is quite ugly. then it won’t be “la taqrabu” for him if he goes there and sit). actually this made me think that even normal mundane acts can come under “la taqrabu” in such cases.
so that’s why I was confused, if Rajesh will be getting sin for merely eating food as well? because he always thanks his false god in a prayer, after eating. eating causes him to do shirk immediately
my confusion starts here that, if something which is mundane, like eating food. because this thing immediately causes him to do shirk (just like the man on bus, if it sucks him towards Zina. then a mundane act of sitting beside on a public transport will become prohibited for him in that case) then what if this mundane act of Rajesh which immediately causes him to do shirk, becomes a prohibited act for him?
and if it really does become a prohibited action for him (action of eating) then I would be sinful for if I invite him over and I have an active wish/want in my heart that he comes to my house and eats my food. this thing maybe sinful under the category of “wishing/wanting the other person to do a sinful act (mundane act of eating which is now sinful for Rajesh because it causes him to do shirk immediately, just like the man in bus)
Sir can you please clear my confusion? what is the thing that I’m missing out? pleas help me
-
-
Sitting beside a lady is not a casual thing. On the other hand, casual and ordinary things are not a direct cause of a sin, therefore they are not considered as the things of Sad e Zarya. The things of Sad e Zarya are in themselves inappropriate. Eating is not an inappropriate things nor is it a direct cause of a sin.
Whatever you listen or read, keep the principle in mind.
-
@Irfan76 sir can you explain me what does it mean by the term ‘direct cause’.
I thought direct cause means that doing it, will immediately/shortly cause the sin to occur. like as soon as it happens, the sin follows up shortly. but I guess you use the. term ‘direct cause’ for some other meaning. can you tell me about it sir? what does it entail?
-
-
If you hurt someone with a knife it is direct cause, but to buy a knife for ordinary use and then at some occasions you hurt someone with that knife, this purchase of knife is not a direct cause.
Staring a woman is a direct cause to zina but coming out of your home is is not a direct cause which provide you a chance to stare a woman.
-
@Irfan76 sir what o understand from your words is that, when you use the words direct cause, what you mean by saying this is that this action will solely and only cause that sin and nothing else normally , right sir?
for example staring at a woman with lust only causes motivation for Zina, regardless of if Zina happens or not, staring with lust will remain sinful in itself. but a thing which cause multiple things good and bad both. then it won’t be direct cause of bad but a mixture of bad and good. so this won’t be sinful. like a hindu buying a phone , it is 100% likely that he’ll use it for doing shirk activities as well, but he’ll use it for other halal activities as well, so his buying of phone and getting phone will not be a direct cause and hence not Haram. and if I have a wish/want for him to get a new phone from market and I suggest him new new phones so that he goes there and buys them because his old phone is slow, then since the phone buying act of his is not a direct cause to his shirk then so his act is not prohibited and I won’t be sinful for my wish and suggestions too, right?
so sir direct means solely causing right?
-
Right.
-
@Irfan76 sir but a question arises that the example that Ghamdi Sahab told us, about a man sitting coming to know that there’s only one seat left in the bus, which is beside a woman.
we can also say that sitting in that seat at that time can also be categorized in something which is “not direct” because he may have some other interests motivating him to sit in that seat. like good air conditioner air throw and also the seat is located near the front which will give him a good view of the journey. so sitting in this seat can cause him get closer to inappropriate things but also causes him to get halal, enjoyable benefits like good view, good air of AC. then how will we look into this scenario?
-
-
Here the man has to decide.
-
@Irfan76 sir what does he have to decide? if he knows the risk of sitting beside this female but wants to sit there to get those benefits. so I just wanted to know will this thing (sitting at that seat) be direct cause which will be prohibited for him to do? or it will be indirect cause and merely sitting still not be prohibited for him?
-
-
sitting beside a woman is a direct cause, but it is allowed in certain cases, like woman in need asks for help, etc. so the man has to decide in the given situation.
-
@Irfan76 sir so we are required to avoid the direct causes of a major sin. right?
and the indirect cause of something is not sinful, even if a person knows that doing such thing will highly likely, almost certainly, but indirectly cause him to do a major sin later. still doing that action will not cause him sin? am I right?.
for example a man has a poor habit the sometimes in peer pressure he sometimes he falls into things which can are somewhat like Riya (like when sometimes he’s sitting in a gathering and then everybody starts making ijtimayi Dua after an event, he was not thinking to make Dua. but watching everybody raise their hand in Dua, he raised his hand as to show he’s doing Dua too, so that other people don’t feel odd think that he isn’t doing whilst everybody is doing…) and many other examples of Riya that occurred with him previously. whenever he falls into anyone of them, he immediately does tawbah. but sometimes later he again find him falling. this happened to him several times.
Now when he was about to get married to a girl, he thought that if I marry this girl, a relationship of families will establish and I would be meeting many of her relatives and her family for the rest of my life. they would come home, or I’ll get invited or simply visit them. and in those meetings what if something or some factors again come together and I fall in Riya. it’s not like i fall in Riya everytime I meet someone. but out of hundred incidents of meetings, one or two incidents of Riya do occur. So he came to this conclusion that if I marry this girl, indirectly, but very likely and close to certainly, I’ll fall in Riya several times during my lifelong relationship with her family and her relatives.
here this man knows highly likelohood of this marriage indirectly causing some major sin, highly likely. but the marriage is indirect source. will he be sinful? and held accountable before Allah, if he goes for marriage? is he required by deen to not go for marriage? and if he’s previously married, is he required to divorce his wife? will he be sinful for the mere act of marrying? just as mere touching a woman with lust is sin itself, regardless of if Zina happens or not (yes later if the man stops before Zina, then it can be forgiven but the sin was initially recorded). so will his marriage be also recorded as a sin? similar to the example of touching a woman with lust will be recorded as sin?
-
These things can never be a sin. The actual sin will be counted only.
-
@Irfan76 okay sir so any direct cause of a major sin can be a sin based on Sadd e Zariya. like touching a woman with lust will be sin in itself. right? which can be forgiven if the Zina didn’t happen. but if Zina happens then lustful touch will also be counted in sin.
but in above example if Riya kari happens then the sin won’t be counted back from marriage.
am I understanding both aspects rights? that lustful touch will be sin itself but marriage won’t be sin itself in the above example. right sir?
-
-
Right. Marriage can’t be a sin.
-
@Irfan76 sir I want to discuss one understanding that came in my mind. when I was trying to figure out if in the example of Rajesh. his eating food , immediately causes him to feel the want to thank his false god. and this want causes him to do shirk. so while wondering if that action of him eating, will come under la taqrabu or not. I started to compare it with example of things where Quran applied this principle of ‘la taqrabu’ in the cases related to Zina.
I noticed that the things where Quran made it impermissible to do things, were all those actions. which if a person does then he keeps getting sucked towards Zina in such a way that despite knowing the seriousness of sin and it’s reality, he usually can’t keep control of himself and still slip into the Zina. thus a lustful touch to a woman will suck him towards Zina in such a way that despite knowing the seriousness of sin, he won’t be able to escape the temptation generally. so Allah stopped the lustful touch.
And this thing is understandable that if generally humans had the power to control themselves after touching then there was no need to make it impermissible to touch a woman. Just as when a person is fasting, he can generally control himself while watching delicious food and ice cold drinks, when he goes to a place where he can see them. even if it tempts him, he can overcome this temptation with ease, so there is no need to make it impermissible to visit a place where such foods are present while a person in fasting.
So it made me understand this point of view that maybe in “La taqrabu” only those things fall which a person, after doing them, will get suck into sin, even while knowing it reality of being a big sin.
So in example of Rajesh, even though this leads him always to do Shirk immediately after eating. this occurrence of Shirk is not because of he feels a very strong uncontrollable impulse of doing shirk, which he can’t avoid easily. he can avoid it normally if only he believes that this thing of shirk he is doing is a sin and wrong act. which means that if he had believed it to be shirk, he would have avoided it normally even after eating food (it’s not like touching woman, where even the person knowing the reality of Zina, gets sucked towards Zina with a difficult to break spell and does Zina). so even for Rajesh here, eating won’t be a sin under “la taqrabu” and me wanting him to eat the food despite knowing that shirk will happen, I won’t be blamed for wanting the other person to do a sinful act becaue eating is not a sinful act for Rajesh.
But on the other hand, if Rajesh were to touch a his girlfriend with lust even if he believes it’s halal to have have sexual relationship with his girlfriend. even if he believes that, touching a woman will be falling under “la taqrabu” for him. and if I want and wish and facilitate him to achieve this act of “touching his girlfriend”, then I’ll be sinful too. because here the nature of the act is that even if Rajesh accepted and believed that Zina is Haram and big sin. then after touching he wouldn’t have been able to control himself. this thing would put an difficult to break spell on him, attracting towards Zina, even if he were to know it’s Haram.
So that’s what makes the difference… that me facilitating and wanting Rajesh to eat food, despite knowing that eating will cause him to do Shirk immediately. because eating does not fall under “la taqrabu” for him, because had he believed the shirk to be Haram, he could easily avoided it.
but me, wanting and facilitating Rajesh to touch his girlfriend, will remain sinful for me, because touching comes under “la taqrabu” even for Rajesh, because had he believed that Zina is Haram. he would still fall in it because of strong attraction.
sir am I right to understand this? please help me clear my concepts, because if it’s correct then it can be a principle for me to judge scenarios but if it’s wrong then I’ll fall in big errors if I use this principle. can you please explain me.
-
As told earlier the acts of sadde zarya are inappropriate in themselves. Whole the normal things are not inappropriate. Otherwise every thing take to sins even taking breath can be a cause to sins.
-
@Irfan76 okay sir I understand your point. but the question comes about that what comes under inappropriate? Muslims consider something to be inappropriate if it’s sin or is a violation of command of Allah.
As Allah has commanded us to not do Zina. so we term Zina as inappropriate. but there are some things which lead to Zina like lustful touch or staring a woman. they would have been not inappropriate thing, had Allah not commanded us to avoid these actions too. so when Allah commanded us to not do these actions too, in the words of “la taqrabu” then we understood that doing these things will be violation of this guidance of Allah, hence Muslims term it as inappropriate.
Ghamdi Sahab also when explaining the rule of sadde zariya said some words like this “Yeh cheezen aslan Haram nahi hotin, magar inki janip bharne se andesha hota hai ke maamla wahan Chala Jayega, toh is baab mein in cheezon se bhi roka hata hai”
I meant to put forward this question sir, that isn’t it like Muslims only call anything religiously inappropriate, if it’s sinful? and if Allah hadn’t commanded “la taqrabu” or commanded to lower gaze , then a lustful stare may have not been considered inappropriate by Muslims. I mean if it was something inappropriate in itself, innately, then even without these commands, it would remain inappropriate. but what I understood is that the reason Muslim calls these actions inappropriate is because of these commands of Quran of lowering gaze and “la taqrabu”.
so how to relate these aspects… that under the command of “la taqrabu” only those things come which are inappropriate themselves (for applying this principle it’s logical that we should first know by our nature, which things are inappropriate [independent of guidance of sharia], in our nature). only then can we identify which things are innately inappropriate and hence fall under this command. But if we don’t know innately, inappropriate things (In this matter, not others) then we would logically call only call those things inappropriate which are violation of Allah’s command.
sir can you please help me understand what do you mean when you say is something inappropriate itself? and how to look into this matter in above paragraph.
I mean it becomes a confusing circle, if we call lustful stare, inappropriate because of an existing command of Allah then it means it was not Inappropriate itself but after command of Allah ,it became inappropriate. but we also say for application of “la taqrabu” , only those things will come under it which are inappropriate themselves. it means we should be able to identify which things are inappropriate (separate from the guidance of shariah) in our nature, so that we put it under category of “la taqrabu”. and then say that his is command of Allah.
sir if I couldn’t explain my point to you, please let me know I’ll try to explain more. Please help me in this regard of understanding the roots.
-
-
Inappropriate things are universal. Staring at a woman or touching her is inappropriate in every society. With consent touching is allowed, but it still is considered inappropriate, or not preferred.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
