-
Is Commiting A Mushtabeh Thing Sinful In Itself?
my question is that if anything is mushtabeh, it has evidence of both Halal and Haram. but neither of them is heavier than the other.
Ghamdi sahab says that prophet told us that it’s near taqwa to give the preference to Haram side. my question is that is this a suggestion from prophet of Allah that it is rewarding and better to avoid it, in terms of solidating feelings of taqwa? Or is it an obligatory command of prophet?.
if a person while being in a mushtabeh thing, carries on with it, will he be sinful and punished? because of violating the command of prophet?
or it won’t be sin on him because it was not clear that it is Haram
-
5 Replies
-
Is Commiting A Mushtabeh Thing Sinful In Itself?
updated 6 months, 3 weeks ago
2 Members
·
5
Replies
-
It is advised to refrain from a mutashabeh. If one adopts it, it is obviously not a sin.
-
@Irfan76 okay sir it means if I think a food to be mushtabeh with half and half evidence of Haram and halal, if I refrain from it then it would be rewardable but if I still go ahead and eat it then I will not be sinful, even the aspect of halal is not heavier than Haram but is equal to it. I won’t be sinful for eating it, right sir?
-
-
Right. It is not sin. The advice is to make one cautious.
-
sir I want to understand that what exactly is a thing to be categorized under mushtabeh? I’ll give you some examples.
1st example is of pig. in order to find it’s status among Halal/Haram we have to look if he’s beastly or not. Now there’s one clear evident/certain fact about of pig that it has hooves like cow and goat. having hooves is a sign of non-beast. There’s another clear evidence that is they have canines, this thing is a sign of beastliness. Now this animal has both characteristics. both facts are present clearly and both facts are evidences towards their own side. then comes a confusion which to give heavier weight.
2nd example would be a man who gave his father money as an amanat and safe keeping as he wanted to build up some money for his needs, his father used up the money saying that whatever his son possesses is of his father and what his father possesses is of his son. this action in itself has 2 point of views. one is what his father said that his son’s money is like his own money. but the second point of view is that it is not a normal money but it was amanat. the action in itself has 2 evidences in it.
3rd example would be, one day rain happened at night. and a man was going out of his house in morning. he fell into a puddle of water and mud with splashes on his clothes. now he knows that last night it had rained and rain water is clean and also the mud is clean so this puddle is pure. but he also knows that in roads animals do pass by, like donkey, cow. with excrement attached to their hooves or they themselves doing excrement. it’s not like everyday they pass by, it is that they pass by some mornings and some mornings they don’t. in this puddle that formed last night, did they pass by or not, he has no clue, no evidence to suggest him. if the animals would be passing everyday in morning then this thing could have been a sort of evidence for him, or if they don’t pass at all then it could also be an evidence for him. but the reality is that sometimes they do, some days they don’t (which I don’t think is an evidence). Did they pass by today in morning or not, he has no clue to prove either.
so sir in example 1 and 2. the thing/action in debate has a proven evidence on both sides. like in pig example, it is proven certainly that it has hooves. but it is also proven that it has canines. so the ambiguity is in which evidence to give weight to. both evidence ARE FOUND Certainly, the only difficulty is in deciding.
but in example 3. there is no ACTIVE Evidence to proof either side. the only thing is the knowledge that sometimes the animals pass sometimes they don’t (which is not an evidence in itself, am I right sir?).
so examples 1 and 2 are something mushtabeh. having proven evidence on both sides.
but in example 3, there is no proven evidence that in this water in this particular puddle, an animal has passed. there is only knowledge that animals sometimes pass and sometimes they don’t (which I don’t think is an evidence).
so here in this example we will say the person to not think about whether he passed or not . just take a step back and just focus on the water itself that it’s pure. so go ahead and don’t put any weight on the thought if animal passed or not. this water is pure for him.
Sir am I right to think that example 1 and 2 are mushtabeh but example 3 is not mushtabeh but rather doubtful and a person should not pay attention to the doubt and just focus on the water and mud itself which was basically pure. am I right sir?
secondly, is the knowledge of animals passing some days and some days they don’t, this knowledge is not an
evidence, right sir?
-
You are right in examples 1 and 3. In example 2, it is again the case of correct knowledge. The correct opinion is that it was amanat. The property of the son is not the property of the father in the law. A hadith cannot change the law.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
