Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence by MH kamali

It is for the judge to quantify the punishment in

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: sonal liability. A question arises with regard to the value of the excessive portion in the supererogation of quantified wajib. The question is whether an over-fulfillment of this type becomes a part of the wajib itself. There are two main views on this, one of which maintains that excessive performance in quantified wajib also becomes a part of the wajib. But the preferred view is that any addition to the minimal requirement becomes mandub only. For no punishment can be imposed for a failure to perform anything in addition to the minimum required. [14. Ghazali, Mustasfa, I, 47.] Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence ~ Kamali 282 It would be inaccurate to say that a means to a wajib is also a wajib, or that a necessary ingredient of wajib is also wajib in every case. For such a view would tend to ignore the personal capacity of the mukallaf especially if the latter is unable to do what is required to be done: in the event, for example, when the Friday congregational prayer cannot be held for lack of a large number of people in a locality. It would be more accurate to say that when the means to wajib consist of an act which is within the capacity of the mukallaf then that act is also wajib. [15. Ghazali, Mustasfa,, I, 46; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p. 23.] The distinction between wajib and mandub is, broadly speaking, based on the idea that ignoring the wajib entails punishment (`iqab) while ignoring the mandub does not. The distinction between haram and makruh is based on a similar criterion: if doing something is punishable, it is haram, otherwise it is makruh. This is generally correct, but one must add the proviso that punishment is not a necessary requirement of a binding obligation, or wujub. In addition, as Imam Ghazali points out, the element of punishment, whether in this world or in the hereafter, is not a certainty. Whereas in its positive sense the wajib is normally enforceable in this world and might also lead to a tangible advantage or reward, the spiritual punishment for its neglect is, however, awaited and postponed to the hereafter. Hence the invocation of punishment is not a necessary requirement of wajib. When God Almighty renders an act obligatory upon people without mentioning a punishment for its omission, the act which is so demanded is still wajib. [16. Ghazali, Mustasfa, I, 42.] I.2 Mandub (Recommended) Mandub denotes a demand of the Lawgiver which asks the mukallaf to do something which is, however, not binding on the latter. To comply with the demand earns the mukallaf spiritual reward (thawab) but no punishment is inflicted for failure to perform. Creating a charitable endowment (waqf), for example, giving alms to the poor, fasting on days outside Ramadan, attending the sick, etc., are duties of this kind. Mandub is variously known as Sunnah, mustahabb and nafl, which are all here synonymous and covered by the same definition. p.197.] [17. Ghazali, Mustasfa, I, 42; Khallaf, `Ilm, p. 112; Abdur Rahim, Jurisprudence, If it is an act which the Prophet...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/13/2013 for the course ISLAM 101 taught by Professor Islam during the Spring '13 term at Harvey Mudd College.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online