| Reply to Thread New Thread |
10-01-2011, 02:35 PM
|
#1 |
|
|
 Does Maliki fiqh have the "wajib" category? or only Hanafi?
Does Maliki fiqh have the "wajib" category? or only Hanafi?
|
|
|
10-03-2011, 07:59 AM
|
#2 |
|
|
 Yes. The Maaliki madh'hab has five ahkaam; waajib/fard (obligatory), mustahabb/mandub/sunnah (recommended), mubah/jaa'iz (neutral), makruh (disliked), and haraam (prohibited). |
|
|
|
10-15-2011, 01:37 AM
|
#3 |
|
|
They do not differentiate between fard and wajib, unlike the Hanafi madh-hab, generally.
|
|
|
|
10-15-2011, 06:46 AM
|
#4 |
|
|
Only Hanafi madhab differentiate between Wajib and Fard among madahibs
|
|
|
|
10-15-2011, 03:42 PM
|
#5 |
|
|
Do the other Madhāhib (besides Ḥanafī) use the terms Farḍ and Wajib interchangeably? Or they only really use one of the two terms, and the other of the two terms is used only in the Ḥanafī school of thought?
|
|
|
|
10-16-2011, 01:08 AM
|
#6 |
|
|
They use them interchangeably, but generally, the term 'wajib' is used.
|
|
|
|
10-16-2011, 02:57 AM
|
#7 |
|
|
Sayf ad-Din al-Amidi explains this theme well in his ''Al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam''.
|
|
|
|
10-16-2011, 07:52 PM
|
#8 |
|
|
Salam
Do 'obligatory' and 'compulsary' not have the same definition in English?  that's always baffled me about the Hanafi maddhab, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
10-17-2011, 02:06 AM
|
#9 |
|
|
Mandatory, obligatory, compulsory... they mean the same thing in English.
As a recent convert from secular humanism, I find that often the English translations of Islamic concepts are not the best, or worse, they are misleading to an English-speaker. It's best to not get too hung up on them. A lot of times, we’re not speaking the same language. And here I digress on my tangent with examples: When the secular Westerner hears the word ‘deity’, he imagines: a cartoon of an old man in the sky, a mythological concept with no relevance to daily life. When the Muslim says ‘ilāh’, he actually means: something worshipped, something you ultimately serve and obey, whether intentionally or not, even if not a physical object. “Have you seen the one who takes as an ilāh their own desire?” (Sūrat al-Jāthiyah, verse 23) When the Westerner hears ‘innovation’, he imagines: cutting-edge technology, new solutions for the future, Steve Jobs. When the Muslim says ‘bidʿah’, he actually means: a made-up ritual, religious invention, incompatible addition to the religion, new practice that has no basis in the Qurʾān or Sunnah, cultural superstition added into Islam. The ‘royal we’ hardly exists in modern English. Because of this, translating Allāh’s ‘naḥnu’ as ‘We’ gives the utterly false impression that Allāh is many. This feature of Arabic is used to convey the majesty of Allāh, not the multitude of Allāh. A plain English equivalent would be ‘in My Majesty, I’. Part of the reason that I was guided to Islam is, Allāh willing, to make the message of the Qurʾān and Sunnah accessible in plain English that non-Muslim Westerners can understand and relate to. But I still have much to learn about my new religion. |
|
|
|
10-17-2011, 09:27 AM
|
#10 |
|
|
Salam  sister.The rules of Fiqh haven't been developed on the basis of English languages, but rather on the basis of Qur'an and Sunnah.. You may read more about the difference between Fard and Wajib at the following links: The difference between the obligatory (fard) and necessary (wajib) - http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...&ID=972&CATE=4 What is the difference between halal, mustahab, mubah, wajib and sunnat. Also haram, makruhe tahrimi, makruh...etc - http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...3d1b3962614d6b |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
