Indexed OCR Text

(6)
Dr. Sa'īd Ahmad 'Inayatullah and others who are from among the
senior lecturers at Madrasah Saulatiyah (Makkah Mukarramah) sent a
question on this subject during the 2004 hajj season to the Mufti of
Saudi Arabia, Shaykh 'Abd al-'Azīz. They asked if Mina, Muzdalifah and
'Arafat were separate places or were they under the city of Makkah.
The Muftī Sahib replied telephonically stating that each of these places
has its own separate status, and they are not under the city of Makkah.
(7)
Hadrat Maulānā 'Abd al-Hafiz Makkī Sahib has been a resident of
Makkah Mukarramah for many years. He says: "In every situation,
Minā is a separate place from Makkah." He adds: "Some people claim
that Makkah and Mina are now attached to each other. This is not the
case. A Shar'ī attachment has not taken place. I, together with Muftī
Abū Lubābah Sahib, Hadrat Muftī 'Abd al-Hamīd Sahib, and a few other
scholars went personally by car. We took all the possible roads from
Makkah to Mina and back, and measured the distances between the
two. No where did we find the distance less than 900 metres. How,
then, can a Shar'ī attachment take place?"
(8)
Hadrat Maulānā Muftī Ahmad Mumtaz Sahib, the chief muftī of Dar al-
Iftā' Jāmi ah Khulafā' Rāshidīn, Karachi, has written a detailed fatwa on
this issue. He states therein: I had the opportunity of going to
Madrasah Saulatiyah and had a detailed discussion with Hadrat
Maulānā Hashīm Sahib, the principal of Madrasah Saulatiyah. At the
time, he was of the view that the two places were attached to each
other. I said to him that in the issue under discussion, there is no
attachment of two villages. It is of a city and an open field. He
eventually acknowledged that he hadn't thought about it to this day.
(9)
The afore-mentioned fatwa also includes the fatwa of Mufti 'Abd ar-
Rahman al-Kauthar ibn Muftī 'Āshiq Ilāhī Bulandshahrī, who is a
lecturer at Jāmi'ah Tayyibah, Madinah. He went on a tour of Minā and
its surrounding areas in 1428 A.H. and wrote: They are two separate
places. According to what I observed, Mina cannot be classified as a
district which falls under Makkah. Furthermore, there is no
inhabitancy in Minā.
(10)
581

Muftī Muhammad 'Abdullah is the muftī of Jāmi'ah Khayr al-Madāris,
Multan. He too categorically rejects the notion that Mina is a part of
Makkah. He says that Mina is neither an open field which falls under
Makkah, nor is it attached to Makkah - not in reality nor in law.
(11)
Hadrat Maulānā Muftī Ismā'īl Taurū Sāhib of Jāmi ah Islāmīyyah, Sadr
Rawalpindī, also emphasises that according to common practice ('urf)
Minā and Makkah are two separate places. He says that Minā is not
even an open field which falls under Makkah because if it is classified
as such on the basis that it fulfils the needs of the city, then this is
realized from the very first day of the obligation of hajj. Despite this,
the jurists did not classify Mina as an open field of Makkah, and did not
pass the ruling of performing a full salah.
(12)
Muftī In'āmullāh Sāhib of Jāmi'ah Islāmīyyah, Islamabad, has shed
light on this subject from all angles. He provides an answer to every
proof and misgiving presented by those who claim that Mina and
Makkah are attached to each other.
He says: There are differing statements of the jurists on the definition
of attachment and separation. After quoting six views, he writes:
Irrespective of which of these views is the preferred view, if a person
merely looks at these statements, Mina and Makkah are not attached
to each other according to any of these views. Neither are they
considered to be one according to common practice. Instead, they are
two separate places because:
1. If Mina and Makkah had become attached by common practice
('urf), there would be no need to discuss this issue in the first
place.
2.
The common practice of the past unanimously considered
both places to be separate from each other. Very strong proofs
will be needed to change this old common practice.
3.
When people speak, they say: The pilgrims will go from
Makkah to Mina on Yaum at-Tarwiyah, they go, and they
went. After performing ramy and qurbanī, the pilgrims return
from Mina to Makkah, and they returned from Minā to
Makkah. Speaking in this manner is a proof that they are two
separate places. In the same way, if you observe the following
verses of the Qur'an, you will understand that they refer to
moving to and from Makkah, 'Arafat, Muzdalifah and Minā:
582

{ثم أفيضوا من حيث أفاض الناس} {فمن تعجل فى يومين فلا إثم عليه}
{فإذا أفضتم من عرفات فاذكروا الله}
To sum up, many muftīs are inclined to the old view and issue fatwas
accordingly. People are accustomed to the old view. Furthermore, in
the course of discussing this issue, Maulana Muftī Muhammad Rafi
'Uthmanī Sahib said: "As long as there is no unanimity or established
research on this subject, the old fatwa will have to apply. The old fatwa
classifies Minā and Makkah as two separate places." The muftīs who
were present in this discussion concurred with Hadrat Muftī
Muhammad Rafi' 'Uthmānī Sahib. Muftī Sahib had given this reply to a
question posed by Hadrat Maulānā Qarī Muhammad Hanīf Jalandharī,
the principal of Jami'ah Khayr al-Madaris. The latter had asked: "As
long as there is no unanimity or established research on this subject,
what should we say to the masses?" Muftī Sahib replied: "The old
fatwa will have to apply." The muftis who were present concurred.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
The proofs of those who claim that Mina and Makkah are attached to each other
Some of the proofs and misgivings of those who claim that Makkah
and Mina are attached to each other, and answers to them are
provided below.
(1)
Those who write on this topic generally resort to the proof of Shaykh
Hadrat 'Abdullah ibn Subayyil.
In this regard, instead of saying something from our side, it will be
better to revert to the scholars there [in Saudi Arabia]. Hadrat
Maulānā Muhammad Taqī 'Uthmānī Sahib asked this senior imam of
the Haram in this regard. The gist of the answer which the Shaykh
wrote is as follows.
"Minā has become a part of the city of Makkah", the portion of his
answer related to this is as follows:
الذي يظهر لنا أن منى أصبحت اليوم جزء من مدينة مكة ... إن حكومة
المملكة العربية السعودية تعد منى من مکة على اعتبار أنها حي من أحيائها
إلا أن الحكومة تمنع البناء فيها لمصلحة عامة، لأنه لا يجوز لأحد أن يتملك
583

ولا يختص بمنى ولا غيربا من المشاعر لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: منى
مناخ من سبق.
Answer:
Hadrat Muftī Ahmad Mumtaz Sāhib of Jāmi'ah Khulafā' Rashidīn,
Karachi, has given an answer to this:
1. It is not correct to adopt the view of the Shaykh in order to
consider it as the common practice ('urf), the majority view
and the most well-known view.
2. There seems to be a contradiction in his fatwa. He says that
the government classifies Mina as a district of Makkah, and
states his inclination to this view. Then further on, he says:
"The government prohibits the construction of any buildings
there." A district and the absence of constructed buildings
cannot be combined because a field which is beyond the
inhabited area of a city is under no way referred to as a district
of a city. In fact, even a previously-inhabited district attached
to a city which was demolished - for whatever reason - is no
longer considered to be a district of the city. How, then, can
Minā be considered to be a part of Makkah? Yes, inhabited
districts and areas attached to a city can be considered to be
parts of the city. If this is his personal view that a field which is
beyond an inhabited section is part of a city, then this cannot
be a proof for everyone else [it is merely his personal opinion].
3. Thirdly, from the words لأنه لا يجوز لأحد أن يتملك we gauge that
the government wants to separate Mina and other areas from
the city of Makkah. This is why it does not permit anyone to
undertake any construction there.
(2)
Some scholars say that Mina ought to be classified as a fina' (open field)
of Makkah because of four reasons:
1.
The slaughter-house is situated there.
2.
It is the assembly place of pilgrims.
3.
It has parking areas for vehicles.
4. It is a place for taking walks and strolls.
Answer:
584

This is not correct for the following reasons:
1. It does not have any amenities which are peculiar to Makkah.
Whatever arrangements are made there, are done for the
fulfilment of the rites of hajj. The people of Makkah take
secondary benefit from it. However, by taking secondary
benefit from it, it cannot be classified as a place which fulfils
the needs of Makkah. The slaughter-house too is there for the
fulfilment of hajj rites, sacrificing of animals of hajj, etc. If, by
the way, the people of Makkah are compelled to slaughter
their animals in Mina, then this too will be a secondary
arrangement. Mina cannot be classified a fina' of Makkah
because of this reason.
2. Assuming the slaughter-house was classified as a need of the
city, and Minā is therefore classified as a finā' of Makkah, then
the fina' will be specifically that place which has been reserved
for the slaughter-house. The entire area of Mina will not be
called a finā' because of this.
3. When people experience a need, they park their vehicles there
because it is near the city. It is not a designated parking area.
4. There is no special park where people go for walks and strolls.
They merely go there as and when they want.
5. Is jumu'ah permissible in Minā? Imam Abu Hanīfah
rahimahullāh and Imām Abū Yusuf rahimahullāh are of the view
that it is permissible. Imam Muhammad rahimahullah is of the
view that it is not. If Mina was a fina' of Makkah, this difference
of opinion between them would not have occurred in the first
place because whether a find' is attached to a city or separate
from it, jumu'ah is permissible there.
6. Assuming Mina has a place allocated for walks, strolls and
games for the people of Makkah, even then, it is not included
among the needs or amenities of a city. The following is stated
in al-Muwaffaqāt:
أما الحاجات فمعنابا أنها مفتقر إليها من حيث التوسعة ورفع الضيق المودى في
الغالب إلى الحرج والمشقة (الموفقات: ٢٩)
7. If Minā is referred to as a fina' of Makkah because of the
slaughter-house, then based on the fact that it is a stop-over
place, Muzdalifah and 'Arafat should also be referred to as find'
of Makkah. Wherever the cause is found, the rule will apply. If
585

anyone says that Muzdalifah and 'Arafat are far from Makkah,
this is why they cannot be referred to as fina' of Makkah, then
as per the investigation of 'Allamah Sharanbalalī, this
objection is unreliable. He considers amenities and needs, and
not distance.
8. The narrations which have been quoted where Minā is
referred to as a finā' of Makkah are all related to kitab al-
jumu'ah. Jumu'ah and the two 'id salahs are from among the
needs of a city, but qasr (shortening of the salah) is not from
among the needs of a city. The following is stated in Marāqī al-
Falāh:
ولا يلحق فناء المصر بالمصر فى حق المسافر، يلحق الفناء بالمصر فى حق صلاة
الجمعة. (مراقى الفلاح: ص ٢٥٤)
(3)
A general point which resulted in this entire discussion is that it is
said: "Presently, the inhabitancy of Makkah has extended beyond Minā
and Mina is now a part of Makkah." Although the two were separate
places in the past. It is because of this, many scholars are of the view
that the two are attached to each other. They all say the same thing,
but in different words. Some muftīs say that during the hajj of
2000/1420 A.H., they wrote to the muftīs of Madrasah Saulatiyah. It
also contains the affirmations of some muftis who visited the said
Madrasah. For example, Muftī Shabbīr Ahmad Murādābādī Sahib,
Muftī Fārūq Mīrathī Sāhib, Muftī Ahmad Khanpūrī Sāhib, Muftī Salman
Mansūrpūrī and others. The same point was made in the 10th Fiqhī
Seminar of the Islamic Fiqh Academy. That is: "In the past, Makkah
and Minā were two separate places; but now, Makkah expanded and
the two became attached to each other." Then the presenters of
papers, e.g. Hadrat Maulānā Khalid Sayfullah Rahmānī Sāhib, Maulānā
'Ubaydullah As'adī, Maulānā Irshad al-Qasimī Sahib, and others made a
unanimous statement and presented it as their proof that both places
are now attached. (Extracted from Tahqīq, no. 6, Idarah Ghufrān,
Rāwalpindī).
Answer
The answer to this is that it obviously contradicts the reality. It is an
accepted fact that there was an inhabitancy in Mina in the distant
past, but there is no inhabitancy whatsoever in the present age
whereby we could have said that they are now attached. Furthermore,
586

a district is defined as a place which has buildings and streets. And this
is not the case in Mina.
(4)
Someone could say that although no one lives in Mina for the entire
year, and only during the hajj period, it is not a prerequisite for a place
to be inhabited for the entire year.
كما قال الآفندى رحمه الله: بقاؤها مصراً ليس بشرط.
Therefore, it must be classified as a city during the hajj period.
Answer
This way of thinking is not correct. What 'Allamah Āfendī rahimahullah
meant is that for a place to be classified as a city, its continued "city-
ness" is not a prerequisite. It can be referred to as a city temporarily.
However, this will only happen if it was a village from before. A jungle
or barren place can never be a city.
(5)
Another proof which is presented is that the municipality of both is
the same. (Nida'-e-Shahī, p. 53, December 2003)
Answer
Because no work is done in Mina for the entire year, the municipality
of Makkah does whatever needs to be done there. There is no need for
a separate municipality. This is not a proof that it is a part of Makkah.
Also, some people say that it does have its own municipality. Allah
ta'ālā knows best.
(6)
When you think about present-day Mina, it appears like a modern
European city having modern air-conditioned tents, offices and
various other amenities. Therefore, it cannot be classified as a jungle,
but an inhabitancy.
Answer
1. They are not solid buildings. The jurists have laid down the
prerequisite of solid buildings.
2. No one opts to live permanently in those tents. For a place to
be classified as an inhabitancy, there is the additional
prerequisite of it being a place where people live.
587

3.
The Arab princes set up even better tents [than those in Minā]
in the deserts. No one refers to those places as inhabitancies.
4. Royal palaces are situated in Minā. They are inhabited by
servants and guards. However, their staying there is not
considered in order to classify Mina as an inhabitancy.
In short, neither are the buildings attached to Mina, it is not a place of
residence, nor do people normally choose to live there. In fact, from
the Shari'ah point of view, it is not even good to live there.
عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت: قلت يا رسول الله! ألا نبني لك بناء بمنى
يظلك؟ فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا منى مناخ من سبق.
(ترمذى: ١٧٧٧، باب ما جاء فى أن منى مناخ من سبق وكذا فى أبو داود وابن
ماجه)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Jumu'ah salah in Mina during the hajj days
Question
The jurists of the past stated the permissibility of having jumu'ah in
Mina during the days of hajj. However, in those days, it had an
inhabitancy in the form of a village, and this is no longer the case.
Bearing this in mind, can jumu'ah be performed in Mina in our present
age? If it can, then is it wajib or is it merely permissible?
Answer
1. Nowadays there is no inhabitancy in Mina as a law. Many years ago,
the buildings there were demolished and all signs of inhabitancy were
put to an end. Hajj is performed in tents only, as stated by Maulānā
'Abd al-Hafiz Makkī Sahib in one of his writings. It is therefore not
classified as a village.
2. In the chapter on jumu'ah, the jurists state that according to Imam
Abū Hanīfah rahimahullāh and Imām Abū Yūsuf rahimahullāh, jumu'ah
in Mina is permissible in the presence of the Amir. But they
unanimously state that it is not permissible in 'Arafat. They then give a
reason for this: "Mina is a village, and becomes a city during the days
of hajj." Jumu'ah is therefore permissible in Minā, while 'Arafat is
purely a desert. However, bear in mind that Mina is not a village in our
times. Therefore, it will not become a city during the days of hajj. In
order for a place to become a city, it must first be a village. Since Minā
588

is a desert, it cannot be a city during the days of hajj. Observe the
following:
Al-Hidāyah:
وتجوز بمنى إن كان الأمير أمير الحجاز أو كان مسافراً عندبما وقال محمد: لا
جمعة بمنى لأنها من القرى، حتى لا يعيد بها. ولهما أنها تتمصر في أيام الموسم،
وعدم التعييد للتخفيف، ولا جمعة بعرفات في قولهم جميعاً، لأنها فضاء وبمنى
أبنية. (الهداية: ١٧٦٧، باب صلاة الجمعة)
Ibn Humām rahimahullāh says that there is no jumu'ah in an open field:
قال ابن الهمام: إذا سافر الخليفة فليس له أن يجمع في القرى کالبراري. (بدايه
مع الفتح ٥٤،٢٣٥، دار الفكر)
The present day condition of Mina is closest to the condition of 'Arafat
as described by the jurists. The living of workers and labourers there is
not taken into consideration. Furthermore, there are no people who
live there permanently.
Yes, in the olden times, Mina was an inhabited place; as is gauged from
the texts of the jurists. It is for this reason that when mentioning the
presence of an inhabitancy in their definition of a city, they used to
mention the inhabitancy of Minā.
Al-Fatāwā al-Hindīyyah:
والمصر في ظابر الرواية: الموضع الذي يكون فيه مفتٍ وقاضٍ يقيم الحدود
ولينفذ الأحكام، وبلغت أبنيتها أبنية منى بكذا في الظهيرية وفتاوى
قاضیخان. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٤٥(١)
3. Some past scholars state that jumu'ah should not be performed in
Minā.
Musannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah:
عن عبد الملك عن عطاء قال: سمعته .. وسئل: على أبل منى جمعة؟ قال: إنما
بم سفر. وعن خالد بن أبي عثمان قال: شهدت عمر بن عبد العزيز لا يجمع
589

بمنى. (مصنف ابن أبى شيبة: ٨٣٣٢، المجلس العلمى، ما قالوا بمنى جمعة ام
لا؟)
Muwattā Imām Mālik:
قال مالك في إمام الحاج: إذا وافق يوم الجمعة يوم عرفة أو يوم النحر أو بعض
أيام التشريق أن لا يجمع في شيء من تلك الأيام. (مؤطا امام مالك: ص ٤٢٦)
Al-Awsat:
ذكر حديث: جاء رجل من اليهود إلى عمر رضي الله عنه، فقال: آية من كتاب
الله تقرؤونها ... إني لأعلم اليوم الذي أنزلت فيه والمكان الذي نزلت فيه .. إلى
آخر الحديث، قال أبو بكر: ففي الجمع بين بذا الحدیث وحديث جابر رضي
الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الظهر بعرفة بيان ودليل على أن لا
جمعة بمنى ولا عرفة، وقال مالك: لا يجمع الإمام وبو مسافر في بر أو بحر.
(الاوسط لابن المنذر: ٥٣٤٩٧٧٩، من تجب عليه الجمعة)
Al-Fiqh al-Islāmī Wa Adillatuhu:
ولا جمعة بمنى وعرفة نصاً لأنه لم ينقل فعلها بناك. (الفقه الاسلامى وادلته:
٢٢٦٩، دار الفكر)
Kashshāf al-Qannā' (a Hambalī text):
ولا جمعة بمنى وعرفة نصاً، لأنه لم ينقل فعلها بناك، وللسفر. (كشاف
القناع: ٤/٢٤، باب صلاة الجمعة)
In short, jumu'ah should not be performed in Minā.
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
590

KITĀB AN-NIKĀH
THE PROPOSAL/ENGAGEMENT
Customs related to the engagement
Question
What is the reality of the proposal/engagement in the Shari'ah? What
is the ruling with regard to customs which are found in this practice?
Answer
A boy may look at a girl with the intention of marriage. After this, the
two families decide on a marriage, and a promise to marriage is made.
If they wish to give gifts to each other according to what they can
afford in order to engender love and affection, they may do so. Based
on the teaching of Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam:
تهادوا تحابوا
Give gifts to each other and you will develop love for each other.
There is a strong hope that the actual marriage will be solemnized and
the wishes of both families will be realized. At the time of going to see
the girl, there is leeway for the boy to engage in a short conversation
with her. This is the reality of an engagement in the Shari'ah. It is
merely a promise to marry and not a marriage in itself. Therefore, the
rules of marriage will not apply.
All other customs ought to be discarded. Each place and region has
customs which are peculiar to it. In the present times, some of the
customs which are observed in this country are noteworthy: The boy
and girl sitting on a stage and conversing with each other as though
they are already husband and wife, shaking hands with each other,
inserting a ring into the finger of each other, decorating a stage,
observing various other customs related to the wedding hall, taking
photographs and videos, strange men and women intermingling with
each other, etc. When customs of this nature are adhered to, the girl's
family very often has to succumb to astronomical expenses which
could lead to their poverty and having to take loans. The Hadith
prohibits the taking of unnecessary loans.
In short, by discarding customs and fabrications of this nature, and
practising on the Hadith - Religion is easy and simple - it is essential
for one to save one's self from hardships and difficulties of this nature.
591

The proofs are as follows:
عن أبي بريرة رضي الله تعالى عنه قال: جاء رجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه
وسلم فقال: إني تزوجت امرأة من الأنصار، قال: فانظر إليها فإن في أعين
الأنصار شيئاً. (رواه مسلم، مشكاة شريف: ٢٩٦٨)
عن سهل بن سعد رضي الله عنه قال: ذكر لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
امرأة من العرب فأمر أبا أسيد أن يرسل إليها فأرسل إليها فقدمت فنزلت في
أجم بني ساعدة فخرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى جاءبا فدخل
عليها فإذا امرأة منكسة رأسها فلما كلمها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
قالت: أعوذ بالله منک، قال: قد عذتک مني، فقالوا لها: أتدرى من بذا؟
فقالت: لا، فقالوا: بذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاءک ليخطبك قالت:
أنا كنت أشقى من ذلك. (رواه مسلم: ٦٩(٢)
Tahtāwī:
قوله والنظر إليها قبله، أي فإنه مندوب، لأن داعية للألفة فينظر إلى وجهها
وكفيها وإن لم تأذن له بيأو وليها إذا علم أن يجاب في نكاحها. (حاشية
الطحطاوي على الدر المختار: (٢، كوئته)
Fatāwā Shāmī:
قال في شرح الطحاوي: لو قال: بل أعطيتنيها؟ فقال: أعطيت، إن كان
المجلس للوعد فوعد. (فتاوى الشامى: ٣/١، سعيد)
Majmū'ah Qawānīn Islāmī:
It is permissible for a male to look at the female whom he intends to
marry. It is also permissible for the female to look at the male who
intends marrying her. Once the relationship has been agreed upon, it
is classified as a "promise to marry" in the Shari'ah. It does not hold
any legal obligation. Giving a ring, some cash, clothing, or any other
592

gift is an indication of an agreement to marry. However, by doing all
this, one cannot be compelled into the marriage.1
Kifāyatul Muftī:
During an engagement, the intention is a "promise to marry". That is,
the words which are uttered during an engagement are for a promise
to marry, and they are not intended to solemnize the marriage. This is
why another assembly is held for solemnizing the marriage.2
Āp Ke Masā'il:
The point which is concluded from the question is that it is not
permissible for the boy and girl to speak telephonically, to speak with
each other, to move around together, and so on. But what if this is a
common practice in a society and no one considers it to be evil? What
is the ruling then?
The fiancé and fiancée are strangers to each other. Therefore, before
their marriage, the rules which will apply to them are the same which
apply to any male and female who are strangers to each other. The
fiancé cannot intermingle with his fiancée. If such a practice is
common in a society, it cannot be furnished as a proof for
permissibility. When any custom is against the Shari'ah, it has to be
corrected. Social interactions before the marriage are not permitted.
They can neither meet with each other nor can they be in privacy with
each other. Intermingling with each other before the marriage is in
itself an immoral practice.3
After listing some of the customs which are observed during a
proposal/engagement, Hadrat Maulānā
Ashraf 'Alī Thanwī
rahimahullah writes in Bahishtī Zewar:
In short, it is wajib to give up all these baseless customs. The proposal
of marriage can be fulfilled by a mere postcard or verbal conversation.
The other side may make all necessary inquiries and then give a reply
via a postcard or a verbal promise. The proposal/engagement is over.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best
1 Majmū ah Qawānīn Islāmī, pp. 36-37.
2 Kifāyatul Muftī, vol. 5, p. 51.
3 Āp Ke Masā'il Aur Oen Kā Hull, vol. 5, pp. 34-35.
593

Conversing with the woman one intends proposing to
Question
It is permissible for a person to look at the woman whom he goes to
see. Is it also permissible for them to converse with each other?
Answer
When a person goes to see a woman with the intention of marriage, in
addition to looking at her, it is permissible for him to engage in a short
conversation with her. However, it is not permissible to engage in
loving conversations or in a lengthy conversation as though they are
husband and wife. There is a serious temptation in this.
The permission for a short conversation can be gauged from the
following Ahādīth:
Sunan Ibn Mājah:
عن المغيرة بن شعبة قال: أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فذكرت له امرأة
أخطبها فقال: اذهب فانظر إليها، فإنه أجدر أن يؤدم بينكما، فأتيت امرأة من
الأنصار فخطبتها إلى أبويها وأخبرتهما بقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم،
فكأنهما كربا ذلك، قال: فسمعت ذلك المرأة وبي في خدربا فقالت: إن كان
رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أمرك أن تنظرفانظر وإلا فأنشدك، كأنها
أعظمت ذلک، قال: فنظرت إليها فتزوجتها، فذكر من موافقتها. (ابن ماجه:
١٧٣٤)
... I went to propose to a woman from the Ansar and informed her parents that
Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said to me that I may look at her. They
seemed to disagree. I heard the woman saying, while she was in her private
chamber: If Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam ordered you to look, you
may look at me. If not, I remind you of Allah ...
Sunan Nasa'ī:
ثابت البناني يقول: كنت عند أنس بن مالك رضي الله تعالى عنه، وعنده ابنة
له، فقال: جاءت امرأة إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فعرضت إليه نفسها
فقالت: يا رسول الله ألک في حاجة. (سنن نسائى: ٥(٢)
594

... A woman came to Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam and presented her
self to him saying: O Rasūlullah! Do you have a need for me?
عن سهل بن سعد رضي الله عنه قال: ذكر لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
امرأة من العرب، فأمر أبا أسيد أن يرسل إليها، فأرسل إليها، فقدمت فنزلت
في أجم بني ساعدة، فخرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى جاءبا فدخل
عليها، فإذا امرأة منكسة رأسها فلما كلمها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
قالت: أعوذ بالله منك، قال: قد عذتك مني، فقالوا لها: أتدرى من بذا؟
فقالت: لا، فقالوا: پذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاءک ليخطبک قالت:
أنا كنت أشقى من ذلك. (رواه مسلم: ٦٩(٢)
عن عبد الرحمن بن حنظلة الغسيل قال: حدثتني خالتي سكينة بنت حنظلة
وكانت بقبا تحت ابن عم لها توفي عنها، قال: دخل علي أبو جعفر محمد بن علي
وأنا في عدتي فسلم ثم قال: كيف أصبحت يا بنت حنظلة، فقلت بخير
وجعلك الله بخير، فقال: أنا من قد علمت قرابتي من رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم وقرابتي من علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله تعالى عنه وحقي في
الإسلام وشرفي في العرب، قالت: فقلت: غفر الله لك يا أبا جعفر أنت رجل
يؤخذ منك ويروى عنك تخطبني في عدتي؟ فقال: ما فعلنا إنما أخبرتك
بمنزلي من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم قال: دخل رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم على أم سلمة بنت أمية بن المغيرة المخزومية وتأيمت من أبي سلمة
بن عبد الأسد وہو ابن عمها فلم يزل يذكربا بمنزلته من الله تعالى حتى أثر
الحصير في كفر من شدة ما كان يعتمد عليه فما كانت تلك خطبة. (السنن
الكبرى للبيهقى: ٧٨٪٥، باب التعريض بالخطبة، دار المعرفة بيروت)
وعن عبد الرحمن بن القاسم عن أبيه أنه كان يقول في قول الله عز وجل: "ولا
جناح عليكم فيما عرضتم به من خطبة النساء." أن يقول الرجل للمرأة وبي
595

في عدة من وفاة زوجها إنك على الكريمة وإني فيك لراغب وإن الله لسائق
إليك خيراً ورزقاً ونحو بذا من القول، وعن مجابد في بذه الآية قال: بو قول
الرجل للمرأة في عدتها إنك لجميلة وإنك لتعجبيني ويضمر خطبتها فلا
يبدين لها بذا كله حل معروف. (السنن الكبرى للبيهقي: ٥٧٧٨، باب التعريض
بالخطبة، دار المعرفة بيروت)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Corresponding with a woman with an intention of marriage
Question
1. A person wants to get to know a woman with the intention of
marrying her. Is it permissible for him to write to her, and for her to
reply to his letters?
2. If he comes to know her in this way or already knew about her from
before hand, will it still be permissible for them to correspond? Even if
the letters contain themes of love? And what if they do not contain
themes of love? What will the ruling be?
Answer
1. If there is an intention to marry, the pure Shari'ah permits the male
to look at the female and to engage in a short conversation with her.
This being the case, it will also be permissible to correspond with her.
Obviously, it must not be for enjoyment or merely passing of time.
Furthermore, just as it has been emphasised for the male and female to
consider the limits of the Shari'ah at the time when he goes to see her,
it is essential to consider the limits of the Shariah when
corresponding with each other. The Ahadith permit a male to look at a
female with the intention of marriage. Corresponding is of a lesser
degree. Once the necessary details have been gauged through
correspondence, the correspondence must stop.
2. If the necessary information has been ascertained, it will not be
permissible to correspond further irrespective of whether themes of
love are mentioned or not. After all, they are like strangers until the
marriage is solemnized.
596

Tahtāwī:
قوله والنظر إليها قبله، أي فإن مندوب، لأن داعية للألفة فینظر إلى وجهها
وكفيها وإن لم تأذن له بي أو وليها إذا علم أنه يجاب في نكاحها. (حاشية
الطحطاوى على الدر المختار: (٢، كوئته)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Conversations after the proposal/engagement
Question
What do the 'ulama' and muftīs have to say about the following:
Zayd sent a marriage proposal to a certain woman and his proposal
was accepted. Can Zayd converse with his fiancée before the actual
marriage?
Answer
The Shari'ah permits them to converse when it is necessary. Once the
proposal has been accepted, the need has been fulfilled and it is no
longer necessary for them to converse with each other. Furthermore,
it is not permissible for a person to engage in amatory conversations
with his fiancée. A very dangerous situation has been observed in
some places. A person takes his fiancée in his car for drives. This
entails the two being in privacy and is totally forbidden. One must
bear in mind that a fiancée is like a stranger.
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār:
ولا يكلم الأجنبية. (الدر المختار: ٦٣٦٩، سعيد)
Majmū ah Qawānīn Islāmī:
It is harām for the two to be in privacy before the marriage.1
وفي الأشباه: الخلوة بالأجنبية حرام. (الدر المختار: ٣٣٢٣)
Āp Ke Masā'il:
The fiancé and fiancée are strangers to each other. Therefore, before
their marriage, the rules which will apply to them are the same which
apply to any male and female who are strangers to each other. The
1 Majmū ah Qawānīn Islāmī, p. 37.
597

fiancé cannot intermingle with his fiancée. If such a practice is
common in a society, it cannot be furnished as a proof for
permissibility. When any custom is against the Shari'ah, it has to be
corrected. Social interactions before the marriage are not permitted.
They can neither meet with each other nor can they be in privacy with
each other. Intermingling with each other before the marriage is in
itself an immoral practice.1
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Establishing friendly relations with a woman with a view to marrying her
Question
Honourable Hadrat Muftī Sāhib. As-salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi
wa barakātuh.
I am a doctor who intends marrying a well-mannered female doctor. I
am quite afraid because of the present evil environment. There is a
young well-mannered female doctor here in the hospital. She is
observant of the salahs and wears a scarf on her head. I have no
contact with her at the moment. Will it be permissible for me to
establish a friendly relationship with her with a view to marrying her?
In this way I could learn more about her inner-self, and be satisfied
whether I should proceed to marry her or not. Kindly guide me in the
light of the Shari'ah.
Answer
Your approach is not permissible according to the Shari'ah. The
character and habits of a woman can be ascertained in a better manner
by inquiring from her friends and family women. Also, only a woman
is better equipped to understand the temperament of another woman.
Furthermore, you have already looked at the appearance of this
woman. It is not permissible for you to look at her again and again.
Nasb ar-Rāyah:
قال عليه السلام: لا يخلون رجل بامرأة، ليس منها بسبيل، فإن الشيطان
ثالثهما. قلت: وقد روي من حديث عمر رضي الله عنه، وابن عمر رضي الله
تعالى عنه وجابر بن سمرة رضي الله تعالى عنه، وعامر بن ربيعة رضي الله
1 Āp Ke Masā'il Aur Oen Kā Hull, vol. 5, pp. 34-35.
598

تعالى عنه، وليس فيه قوله: "ليس منها بسبيل". (نصب الراية: ٤٢٤٩، المكتبة
المكية)
Al-Hidāyah:
ولا يجوز أن ينظر الرجل إلى الأجنبية إلا إلى وجهها وكفيها، فإن كان لا يأمن
الشهوة لا ينظر إلى وجهها إلا لحاجة، لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: من نظر إلى
محاسن امرأة أجنبية عن شهوة صب في عينه الآنك يوم القيامة. فإن خاف
الشهوة لم ينظر من غير حاجة تحرزاً عن المحرم، وقوله لا يأمن يدل على أنه
لا يباح إذا شك في الاشتهاء، كما إذا علم أو كان أكبر رأیم ذلک. (الهداية:
٤٤٥٨، كتاب الكرابية، فصل فى الوطئ والنظر واللمس)
Ad-Durr al-Mukhtār:
ولا يكلم الأجنبية. (الدر المختار: ٦٩ ٦٣، سعيد)
Majmū ah Qawānīn Islāmī:
It is harām for the two to be in privacy before the marriage.1
وفي الأشباه: الخلوة بالأجنبية حرام. (الدر المختار: ٢٣ ٣٣)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Looking at other parts of the body
Question
A person intends marrying a certain woman. In addition to looking at
her face and hands, is it permissible for him to look at other parts of
her body?
Answer
The Shari' ah permits looking at a woman at the time of need, and this
need is fulfilled by looking at her face and palms. Imam Abu Yusuf
rahimahullah is of the view that a person may also look at her feet. It is
neither necessary to go beyond that nor is it permissible. It is
1 Majmū ah Qawānīn Islāmī, p. 37.
599

therefore essential for a person to abstain from looking at other parts
of the woman's body.
I'lā' as-Sunan:
عن جابر رضي الله تعالى عنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إذا
خطب أحدكم المرأة فإن استطاع أن ينظر إلى ما يدعو إلى نكاحها فليفعل.
قلنا: ليس المراد التعميم بل المقصود من الإشارة إلى أن بذا النظر للضرورة،
فينبغي أن لا يجاوز حد الضرورة، والضرورة تندفع بالنظر إلى الوجه والكفين
فلا ينبغي أن يتجاوزيما. (اعلاء السنن: ١٧٣٧٨، باب جواز النظر الى المخطوبة،
ادارة القرآن)
Mirqāt al-Mafātīh:
إنما يباح له النظر إلى وجهها وكفيها فحسب، لأنهما ليسا بعورة في حقه
فيستدل بالوجه على الجمال وضده، وبالكفين على سائر أعضائها باللين
والخشونة. (مرقات شرح مشكاة: ٦/٩٥، باب النظر الى المخطوبة، ملتان)
Al-Hidāyah:
ومن أراد أن يتزوج امرأة فلا بأس بأن ينظر إليها وإن علم أن يشتهيها لقوله
صلى الله عليه وسلم فيه: أبصربا فإنه أحرى أن يؤدم بينكما، ولأن مقصوده
إقامة السنة لا قضاء الشهوة. (الهداية: ٤٤٥٩، كتاب الكرابية، وكذا فى الشامى:
٧٠ ٦٣، سعيد)
وعن أبي يوسف أنه يباح النظر إلى ذراعيها أيضاً لأن يبدو منها عادة. (فتاوى
الشامى: ٦٣٧٠، سعيد، ومثله فى الهداية: ٥٩٪٤، كتاب الكرابية)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
600