. J "" (cont.)

It is not acceptable because umoom al-muqtadhaa is considered a textual argumentthat is, as if the words were explicitly stated in the hadith2and a textual argument cannot be overruled by an analogy based on another textual argument. In other words, if the concept of umoom al-muqtadhaa is accepted for this hadith, "Allah has pardoned ... ", then the hadith quoted above, "Whoever forgets a prayer must pray it...," provides an exception to the general ruling for the prayer only. But no further analogy may be made on the basis of that particular ruling. To make this point clearer, here is how it would apply in case (vii) mentioned above: If a person gives his zakah to an undeserving recipient by mistake, on the basis of umoom al-muqtadhaa and this hadith, "Allah has pardoned ... ", one would have to say that he has fulfilled his obligation of zakah and need not repay it to a deserving person. The "worldly ruling" of his mistake is to be overlooked. One cannot argue on the basis of analogy with one who has forgotten his prayer because analogy cannot overrule what is understood to be actually stated in this hadith. Ironically, all of those Shafi'ee opinions stated above could be considered correct if one argues that there is no umoom al-muqtadhaa and that this hadith, "Allah has pardoned ... ," does not apply to any worldly rulings at all. In this case, one can then argue in all of those issues on the basis of analogy with the hadith, "Whoever forgets a prayer must pray it..." The second area is the permissible acts that one performs by mistake, out of forgetfulness or due to coercion. Are such acts valid and enforceable or are they considered null and void due to the understanding that this hadith, "Allah has pardoned ... " also covers worldly rulings? The Hanafi response to this question is that such are not overlooked as this hadith is irrelevant to them. Those who understand this hadith in its broadest sense would have to argue that such acts are indeed overlooked and considered null and void. There is another important aspect that needs to be noted here. If it is concluded that this hadith is only in reference to the sinful nature of acts done by mistake, forgetfulness or under duress, then these permissible acts are not related to this hadith. These permissible acts have no sinful nature to them whatsoever. Hence, this hadith has no bearing on them at all. Once again, even if the concept of umoom al-muqtadhaa is rejected, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that statements made out of coercion are not legally binding on the person. From coercion, one can use analogy to 1 Al-Hisni, vol. 2, pp. 273-274. 2 See al-Khinn, p. 1 55. Commentary on the Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi apply the same principle to acts done by mistake or out of forgetfulness. For example, Allah says, H׭ r ., "' > :z r / ץ ":J .. ଢ଼ 1\) ;_fa=i :_; ":J\ ,_"\ ! c:r Ali ;. ,,.. "' ; ,,. ... ... 7 ... .... ... ,,,. ,,.. /J .... J "J ,,., yløùj N1 J O/P.:..:1;J 1LQ 3) e:> c:.:. 4) "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief [shall earn the wrath of Allah] except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment" (al-Nahl 106). If statements of unbelief are to be overlooked due to coercion, obviously, statements concerning lesser matters must also be overlooked. 1 lbn Humaid argues that such a conclusion is most consistent with the general shareeah principles of removing hardship and facilitating matters for all. 2 The above points demonstrate that even those who claim that this hadith applies to both the sin and the ruling of a deed adhere to the following: (a) The worldly ruling is not pardoned when individual rights are violated. (b) The worldly ruling is not completely pardoned or overlooked when community rights are violated. ( c ) The worldly ruling is not even completely pardoned when the specific rights of Allah (acts of worship) are violated. Where does that leave this hadith? If one claims that both the sin and the worldly ruling are to be overlooked and pardon, one must then put that into effect with respect to the relevant cases. However, by agreement of the scholars, that does not seem to be done. The only conclusion that one is forced to reach is that the meaning of this hadith is that the sin of such acts is overlooked and pardoned. It does not mean that the worldly ruling of such acts are overlooked or pardoned. When the worldly ruling of such acts are indeed overlooked, it is not due to the understanding of this hadith but it is due to other evidence.