NATURE OF LEGAL RULINGS

RUKHSA (DISPENSATION)
Originally forbidden is made permissible due necessity/need. Ex: Uttering kufr/damaging others 'property under force. Omitting an obligation due hardship.

`AZIMA (STRICTNESS)
General rulings regardless of circumstances or individuals.

Ex: Traveller/sick not fasting, kasr salah.

RUKHASA w.r.t DIFF MADHABS

Easiest of the madhabs about a given question. Allowed when forced by necessity/hardship (even retroactively), provided:

(Act + prerequisites)= valid in one school at least.

Refusing a dispensation and insisting on stricter ruling when this is probably harmful = SIN.

RUKHASA w.r.t DIFF MADHABS

Taliq is unlawful. ( performing an act which is only partially valid in any given school, wholly valid in none ) Ex: Following a hanafi imam w/o reciting fatiha with minimal ablution as per shafis.

AZIMA w.r.t DIFF MADHABS

Following the most rigorous opinion on a given question. Ex: Rinsing the mouth/nostrils during ghusl as if obligatory. More rigorous always preferable in the Shafi'i school even when dispensation is permissible.

AZIMA w.r.t DIFF MADHABS

`Abd al-Wahhab Sha'rani:

Of an absolute certainty, dispensation are only for someone unable to perform the stricter ruling, for in such a case , the dispensation is the stricter ruling in relation to him follow the stricter ruling of a different Imam when able to, since rulings fundamentally refer back to the word of the Lawgiver, no one else; this being especially necessary when the other Imam's evidence is stronger.

AZIMA w.r.t DIFF MADHABS

`Abd al-Wahhab Sha'rani: When able to perform the stricter ruling, does not befit to stoop to taking a permissible dispensation. One should not follow a weaker position except when religiously more precautionary than the stronger. (Because more rigorous rulings necessarily meet the requirements of less rigorous ones (not vice versa), following more rigorous rulings from another school is unconditionally valid, unlike following its dispensations.)

WHAT ENTAILS RESPONSIBILITY

Three conditions, present in any act, make the doer legally responsible for it : 1. (Possibility of) Knowledge about its manner of performance: A sound-minded baligh, capable of knowing rulings by himself/asking is held responsible for what he should be, excuse of ignorance not accepted.

WHAT ENTAILS RESPONSIBILITY

2. Ruling be imposed by authority whom doer is obliged to obey: This prompts obedience. Hence proofs of rulings first elaborate the reason for it being legally binding.

WHAT ENTAILS RESPONSIBILITY

Doer has capacity to do/not do it: Cannot be held responsible for intrinsically/extrinsically impossible action/inaction. Cannot be held responsible for someone else's action/inaction. (W.R.T others only obligation is naseeha/amr-bilmaruf-wa-nahi-anil-munkar) Cannot be held responsible for innate human states (ex: emotional arousalwhen angry, blushing when embarrassed, love, hate, grief, elation, or fear)/innate traits (digestion, breathing, short/tall stature, black/white complexion).

WHAT ENTAILS RESPONSIBILITY

Nothing entailing responsibility is w/o hardship. Moral responsibility => obliged to do acts involving something to bear with. 1: within limits of strength, continuously bearing it =/=> damage to persons, possessions etc. 2: beyond limits of strength, continuous endurance => Doer is cut off, unable to go on, damage persons/ possessions etc. Ex: fasting w/o iftar, a monastic life, making the pilgrimage on foot etc.

WHO MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE

Two conditions make a person responsible for his acts: 1. Ability to understand the evidence from Quran/Sunnah, by himself/asking, that makes him legally responsible. Whoever reaches puberty without showing signs of impaired intellectual faculties, has capacity for responsibility. The Prophet said, "The pen has been lifted from three: the sleeper until he awakens, the child until his first wet dream, and the insane person until he can reason."

WHO MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE

2. Legal Eligibility

2.A

Eligibility for Obligation

Every human is eligible for obligation as the only eligibility is humanness. Partial Eligibility = Rights w/o Duties. Ex: Fetus(can be an heir, proceeds of an endowment (waqf) can accrue to it but has no duties) Full eligibility = Rights + Duties Every human being acquires it at birth.

WHO MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE

2. Legal Eligibility 2.B Eligibility for Performance

Capacity for legally significant words/acts. Doing an obligatory act (salah, fasts etc.), discharges the obligation and penalized for unlawful acts (crime etc.). Eligibility for performance is responsibility, and its basis in man is intellectual discrimination.

WHO MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE

(1)
A person could completely lack(ex: child) or lose(ex: while insane)eligibility for performance. Words/actions have no legal consequences.

Agreements/legal dispositions are null and void.

If violates another's person/ property: Only indemnity out of his own property is due , Retaliation in his own person isnt. "The intentional act of a child or insane person is an honest mistake."

WHO MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE

(2)
A person couldve partial eligibility for performance:

Child at age of mental discrimination but not puberty. = Retarded person NOT of disturbed/ totally bereft of BUT weak-minded/lacking in intellect.
Absolutely beneficial acts (taking gifts/alms) = valid w/o guardian's permission. Absolutely harmful acts (donations, gift, bequest, endowment, divorce, waiving off rights) = Invalid, guardian's permission irrelevant. Acts neither absolutely beneficial nor harmful = Valid IF guardian permits.

WHO MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE

(3)
Puberty + sound mind => Full eligibility for performance. Some events alter rulings even for the fully eligible. EX: Absentminded, Foolhardy people. Intellect = Normal, Eligibility = Full BUT For his/others financial security: Declared legally incompetent in financial dealings => Financial transactions, donations invalid. If a debtor => Legally Incompetent to make dealings that affect his creditors(ex: charitable donations).