Question

Question:

Summary: can I, a 'ammi, make a judgement on what falls under 'umum al-balwa and how do we determine if something is excusable due to 'umum al-balwa?

Assalamu 'alaykum,

If something impermissible

* Is extremely widespread amongst believers and non-believers,

* Is *not* life-or-death necessary,

* Is *either* very inconvenient to avoid or very unpleasant to avoid or is very much at odds with culture to avoid.

Does that fall under 'umum al-balwa? Basically, it is unclear to me what the limit of 'umum al-balwa is. And can a 'ammi make that judgement if it pertains to what he is familiar with?

I'm generally confused because I read instances of  'ulama ruling something excused due to 'umum al-balwa but it seems not too hard to avoid, or sometimes it is hard but possible to avoid. I also rarely see any encouragement for using alternatives(in the public decrees). For example, if X is deemed excused due to 'umum al-balwa, I hear that X is excused because it's difficult to avoid. But then as all the Muslims get so extremely involved and entrenched in X, we'll never be able to deal in halal Y (or even *return* to Y in cases where X actually replaced Y). So I guess, I don't understand the end goal of ruling something excused due to 'umum al-balwa. Is it **just** considering the current present? Is it temporary or permanent?

Also, in general, if something is confirmed excused due to 'umum al-balwa, is it praiseworthy to avoid even if it involves exerting a little or a lot of effort to avoid it, potentially at the expense of time that could be put towards 'ibada or 'ilm or (worldly) working or at the expense of lots of money? Or would it be blameworthy for sort of "denying" a rukhsa?

Follow-up

Question:

Wa'alaikumus Salam

Please provide an example or two of rulings that have confused you. This will help us in better understanding and answering your questions.

JazakAllah khaira,

Wassalam

Response:

Wa alaykum assalam

One example I've heard a long time ago is purchasing books with images on the cover or in them. Nowadays avoiding this (sort of) would be purchasing digital versions rather than physical versions. Of course this is not applicable to all cases, but I never see this recommended where possible. So using a digital version over physical would be an inconvenience, but there is no recommendation for that. Am I incorrect in my understanding?

Another example, is I read in a fatwa on Shafi'i website, quoting imam Ramli (the Shafi'i) -- with understanding that the Hanafi view on rennet is different:

Imam Ramli mentioned,

نعم يعفى عن الجبن المعمول بالإنفحة من حيوان تغذى بغير اللبن لعموم البلوى به في هذا الزمان كما أفتى به الوالد رحمه الله تعالى إذ من القواعد أن المشقة تجلب التيسير وأن الأمر إذا ضاق اتسع وصرح الأئمة بالعفو عن النجاسة في مسائل كثيرة المشقة فيها أخف من هذه المشقة

“In fact, one is excused [ma’fu anhu] from cheese made with rennet from an animal that has eaten something besides milk. This is due to the public affliction [‘umum al-balwa] happening currently. Accordingly, my father [i.e. Shihab Ramli] issued a fatwa on it, as it is from the principles [qawaid fiqhiyyah] that difficulty brings about ease, and when a matter becomes constricted, it widens. Authorities have clearly excused impurities in many situations, on account of difficulty in matters much less burdensome than this.” (Nihayat al-Muhtaj 1/245)

So here, my question is... cheese in and of itself is not a strictly necessary food, like water, so could it not be avoided and replaced? If the situation was different back then due to a requirement for long term food storage (lacking our technology), could families not have bought milk and made cheese themselves with a halal - per the imam - rennet? Could milk not have been available from animals year round anyway? Or other foods that hold for a long time through say pickling and fermenting? In essence, it appears to me that this is not much hardship. Should a fatwa like this not come with "but it is best to avoid cheese if alternative foods are available"?\

Further, the ifta' I generally hear for people in places with few Muslims (this does not affect me alhamdulillah) is that they shouldn't eat non-halal meat and stick to fish, dairy, and vegetables. It seems to me that foregoing non-fish meat completely is at least a little more burdensome or unpleasant than foregoing cheese?

Answer

Wa‘alaykum al-salām wa raḥmat Allah wa barakātuh.

In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful.

The two circumstances which have utility when considering change or laxation in sharʿī rulings are ḍarūrah and ḥājah. Ḍarūrah is when there is a potential loss of life or limb, and ḥājah is when there is difficulty. Ḍarūrah makes haram halal and is often left to the good judgement of the afflicted individual, whereas ḥājah cannot render what is qatʿan(certainly) haram halal. For example, if the only food available is swine, it will only be permissible to consume once one reaches a point where his life is perilously close to death. If one has not eaten for a day or two and the only food available is swine, he will not be allowed to consume it although he is in difficulty. The term ʿumūm al-balwā is used to describe the circumstance -usually ḥājah- when it is widespread.

The role of ḥājah is in issues which are mukhtalaf fīh (debated) or ẓanniyyāt.[i] In your example of purchasing books with pictures, Imam Mālik is famously known to hold the opinion that the prohibited taṣwīr is regarding 3D objects.[ii] This coupled with the taʾwīl that the pictures are tābiʿ and the book is the aṣl widens the scope of considering the laxity in the face of this difficulty i.e. finding textbooks, etc. without pictures. As for the issue of recommending digital pictures, that will only be applicable in the case of those scholars who unequivocally allow it. Secondly, it is not an alternative in every case -as you have mentioned. It is also possible that recommendations are made which you are not aware of.

Although eating specific foods is not necessary, books of fiqh famously say:

في نزع الناس عن عاداتهم حرج عظيم

When a particular food becomes a staple -such as cheese, there is ḥaraj in avoiding it. What if in a particular area many foods become problematic? Again, this is only when the issue is not qatʿan haram and there is iʿtibār of the rukhṣahin Fiqh, as is brightly clear from the Shāfiʿī text that you have quoted i.e., there is rukhṣah in issues of ṭāhārah and najāsah. It is also impractical to expect people to make their own cheese -for example. The recommendation at that point is based on taqwā, not fatwa; the mufti -based on his discretion- may or may not make that recommendation. As for haram meat, it is qatʿan haram by clear Quranic texts; hence, no consideration for the ḥaraj. 

The individual -in general- cannot determine where there is ḥaraj or ʿumūm al-balwā; he must follow a general or specific fatwa from a mufti. In fact, a mufti should also consult other muftis and experts when determining ḥaraj and providing rukhṣah. The mufti(s) considers many factors -including upholding the Islamic ideal- when passing a judgement. A pertinent contemporary example would be of our Darul Ifta's stance on the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. These vaccines were developed using aborted human fetal cells. Many muftis allowed administering this vaccine as the end product did not have any aborted cells. Our stance -looking at the macro- was that in view of the more halal alternative that was available i.e. Pfizer or Moderna, it would not be permissible to use vaccines which were produced in an impermissible manner. Our stance was -and is- motivated by the fact that Islamic Bioethics are ignored and virtually unknown by Muslims. However, those individuals who had reached out to us from certain states where Pfizer or Moderna was not available, they were allowed to use the other vaccines -due to ḥājah.

The end goal of a fatwa which opts to relax a ruling is to remove difficulty from people's lives within the parameters of Sharia. As long as the balwā or difficulty remains, the fatwa would be applicable.  A classical example is that bore bristles were allowed for cobblering because there were no viable alternatives.[iii] Now, this fatwa is no longer applicable.

Opting for ʿazīmah over rukhṣah is definitely praiseworthy.[iv] However, adopting ʿazīmah in every aspect is not for those who are driven by temporary emotions and do not have the necessary foundations. Such individuals become overwhelmed, and -as a result- leave out dīn completely. 

Since determining ḥaraj, ḥājah,ʿumūm al-balwā, rukhṣah, etc. requires a great deal of ijtihād -albeit juzʾī or partial- naturally there will be a difference of opinion and approach.

And Allah knows best.

Mufti Hisham Dawood

Darul Ifta, Darul Qasim