A few days ago, a mufti on one of the radio confirmed the prohibition of ingots and tattoos, citing a hadith of Ibn Masoud in that, and before that I saw a video of one of the sheikhs in which he calls for woe, destruction and great matters for those who do such acts of women.
The International Islamic Fiqh Academy has previously prohibited cosmetic cosmetic surgery altogether.
Because it is intended to change a person’s normal character, in contrast to the fatwa of the Permanent Committee in Saudi Arabia and Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, who said that it is permissible if there is an interest and the process does not result in harm.
The matter may seem confusing to the ordinary observer, especially with the presence of firm fatwas with one saying regarding the prohibition, and the fatwas of prohibition have used one of two paths: a textual path or a reformed path of intentions.
This raises more than one question for me, one of which relates to the methodology of the fatwa, how to deal with the doctrinal doctrinal heritage on the one hand, and how to deal with the texts of the Qur’an and Hadith on the other hand, and how to employ the intentional path on the third hand.
These questions confirm whether the contemporary mufti will transcend the doctrines to his own interpretations, and therefore he is required to clarify his approach in this and other issue, and whether he is a transmitter or a mujtahid, and what is the methodology of his transmission and the methodology of his ijtihad.
Then does the mufti have to make clear in his fatwa that what he says is his personal “choice”, and that there is a difference in the issue in which others may find ample?
There are 3 types of reasoning on the issue raised here by contemporary muftis:
The first:
that such actions change the creation of God, and mere change is prohibited by the text of the Qur’an and hadith.
Second:
The cursing mentioned in the Prophet’s hadith and the consequences of these acts necessitate that they are forbidden, and indeed a major sin.
Third
: The prohibition of cosmetic surgery is an analogy to the prohibition of tattoos and ingrown hairs.
It includes changing God’s creation, insulting His creatures with alteration and alteration, and to the detriment of anesthesia without necessity, imitation of God’s creation, deception and deception, blocking pretexts, and considering outcomes, and that it is “from the adornment of Satan and his ropes that hunt their prey from the people of religion, gentle and fragile immunity.”
The narrations of the main hadith differ on the subject, in some of them “God cursed”, and in some of them “The Messenger of God cursed”, and this is an issue related to how to evaluate this hadith: “God cursed,” because the hadith will be from the actions of Ibn Masoud himself or his supplication
If the first two paths are closer to the textual or apparent path, then the third path is very broad and tries to combine the standard and reformist paths and becomes strict in what cannot be tolerated by all this strictness.
If we return to the texts of the legal schools followed, the books of interpretation and the explanations of the hadith, we will find that the issue is otherwise clear and decisive, and does not take place on this level of disturbing simplification.
The main hadith on the subject says: On the authority of Abdullah bin Masoud, may God be pleased with him, he said: “God cursed the tattooed and the tattooed, the tattooed and the female who plucked, and the fluttering for the good, the changers of God’s creation.” He said: This came to a woman from Banu Asad called Umm Yaqoub, and she was reading the Qur’an, so she came to him and said: What hadith has reached me about you that you cursed the tattooed, the plucking, and the blunting, for the beauty of the changers of God’s creation? Abdullah said: "Why should I not curse the one who cursed the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace? And it is in the Book of God." The woman said: I read between the two tablets of the Qur’an, and I did not find it! He said: "If you have read it, you have found it! [This is how it is in the two verbs]. God Almighty said: (And what the Messenger has given you, take it, and what he forbids you, abstain) [Al-Hashr: 7]. The woman said: I see something of this on your woman now! He said, "Go and see." He said: So I entered the wife of Abdullah, and she did not see anything, so she came to him and said: I did not see anything.
This hadith, which is narrated in the two Sahihs and others, clarifies the strictness of Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, in the prohibition, and that he carried the general public to its apparent meaning, to the extent that he considered it a sufficient reason for separating his wife if she did so! While women denounce cursing about such actions that women usually do, the discussion has expanded to include the emphasis on the “reference” of the Prophetic Sunnah with the Qur’an. Ibn Masoud quoted a year from the Qur’an (and what the Messenger gave you…) for the prohibition of these actions under discussion, In order to establish the authenticity of his narration, which is a very distant path, if we were discussing the ruling on these actions specifically, not in the reference to the Prophetic Sunnah, and the right of discussion was to turn to the meaning of that curse and the reason behind it, which is not mentioned in any of the narrations, which is what happened Scholars and commentators of the hadith are in a dilemma, as we shall see later.
The narrations differ in that, in some of them “God cursed”, and in some of them “The Messenger of God cursed”, which is an issue related to how to evaluate this hadith: God.” The hadith will be the act of Ibn Masoud himself or his supplication, and at that time it will be said: It is a suspended hadith, but it has the rule of lifting, especially since its second part tells that this is the act of the Messenger of God himself. But the important thing here is to research the merits of that curse issued by the Messenger, which we do not find in the various narrations, although it is mentioned in other news on the authority of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan that the hair came from an act of perjury or that it was something that people created under the influence of the Children of Israel.
The hadith was narrated by Mansour bin Al-Mu’tamir on the authority of Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i on the authority of Alqamah bin Qais Al-Nakh’i on the authority of Ibn Masoud, and more than one of them narrated it on the authority of Mansour bin Al-Mu’tamir, including Sufyan Al-Thawri, Jarir bin Hazim, Shu’bah bin Al-Hajjaj and Al-Mufaddal bin Muhalhal.
As for Shu’bah, in some narrations he doubted his pronunciation, so he said: “And I think he said: Al-Mughirat is God’s creation,” as we find in the Musnad of Ahmad and extracted on Sahih Muslim by Abu Awana.
In some narrations, the difference over this word is true for those who are below the class of a sect, and that it includes “for the good, the changers, the creation of God,” as in Abu Dawood.
Moreover, the argument between the woman and Ibn Masoud is mentioned in some narrations and not in others, and other words differ in some narrations, and Muslim and others took care of explaining this difference between the narrators in terms.
And if this hadith expresses the doctrine of Ibn Masoud himself, or what he understood from the curse of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, to these;
Because we did not find the wording of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, with his text, for Aisha and the names of the two daughters of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq - may God be pleased with them - have a different doctrine in the three issues: the tattoo, the tattoo, and the connection, which are the actions that were cursed in the hadith of Ibn Masoud.
Regarding the namas: Ibn Saad narrated on the authority of Aisha that she was asked about the veil - which is the removal of eyebrow hair - and she said: “If you have a husband, then you can remove your eyeballs and make them better than they are, then do.”
This hadeeth was quoted as evidence by the scholars who permitted al-Namas;
Either a divorcee or a spouse, as is the view of the public.
On the authority of Aisha, she also said: “If it was in the face of my brother’s daughters, I would have pulled it out even with a blade.”
Concerning Al-Wasl, it was narrated on the authority of Aisha that a man asked her and said: “The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, cursed the hyphen.”
She said, "Oh, Glory be to God! What is wrong with a zaraa woman that she takes something from wool, so she can tie her hair with it and adorn herself with her husband?! Rather, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, cursed the young woman for straying in her gray hair, even if she wears out her connection to driving."
Some of the Malikis argued with this hadith.
As for tattooing, it was narrated that the hand of Asmaa bint Abi Bakr, may God be pleased with them, was tattooed, and this hadith was corrected by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and the Malikis also indicated that tattooing on the hand is permissible.
These narrations on the authority of Aisha and Asmaa clarify a different concept of these actions that goes beyond the apparent meaning in which Ibn Masoud stood or what he understood of cursing, which confirms to us the importance of asking the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, with its text. For women, our understanding of Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, is weakened.
The problem presented in the hadith relates to two aspects:
The first
: the aspect of the narration’s words, as mentioned above. The wording of the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, we did not find, just as the merits of the narration and the reasons for this harsh cursing of such actions, which is not consistent with their apparent meaning, are absent.
The second
: the side of interpretation. The exceptions made by some jurists regarding the permissibility of some of these cursed actions weaken the apparent burden, as well as the statement that it is forbidden in the rest of the actions.
Because cursing applies to everyone, how can one exclude one of them without the other, or say: it is permissible for the married woman and not the other?
All this prompts a search for the cause of this cursing outside the circle of these acts themselves, so that the cursing or the prohibition have a reasonable meaning that constitutes a motive for these actions and not the actions themselves.
It can be summarized from this that the apparent meaning of the hadith is problematic.
for three things:
The first is that there is no compatibility between mere such actions and the curse that usually comes on major sins, and hence the apparent lack of a reasonable cause.
The second: that the apparent meaning of the hadith “Al-Mughiraat is God’s creation” with the apparent verse (Let them change God’s creation) includes every change, whether it is internal or external.
This is a problem;
It was mentioned in the Prophet’s Sunnah to encourage outward changes similar to these actions, including the saying of the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him: “Five things are part of the instinct: trimming the nails, trimming the moustache, plucking the armpits, shaving the pubic hair, and circumcision.”
The third: the apparent meaning of the phrase “al-Motflajit for good” and the generality of change, deals with the apparent change for the better, beautification or adornment, as well as changing for the worse.
These considerations indicate that the prohibition in the hadith is not general, and that its apparent meaning is not intended, and it is the doctrine of the majority of jurists, contrary to what some contemporary muftis illusion who rely on the apparent and take a look at the words. In fact, there is no dispute regarding the permissibility of necessary and necessary cosmetic surgeries (they are two levels of interests), including repairing the defect by returning the organ to its original origin. And he did the names, may God be pleased with them.
Now, if we look into the jurisprudence schools on the issue, we will find a difference between the jurists, contrary to what these firm fatwas suggest. In the Hanbali school of thought, we find 4 sayings regarding the ruling on nams, tattoos (identifying teeth) and tattoos: the first is that it is forbidden and it was later adopted by the imams of the sect, and the second: It is not forbidden. And the third: that it is permissible, although it is makrooh, and more than one of the Hanbali imams asserted it. Fourth: It is permissible with the husband’s permission. As for Imam Ibn al-Jawzi among them, he has permitted the namas alone. Rather, the Hanbalis went beyond that, in the adopted school of thought, as they stipulated that a woman should shave the face, trim it, improve it, redden it, and the like; Because the problem is - in their view - on the nose, not on the throat.
As for the Malikis, Imam Ibn al-Faris detailed their doctrine when he clarified that tattooing is permissible on the hand, not the face.
It was also made clear that there was a difference of opinion in the wasl on 3 sayings: (1) Some people permitted it a sentence without detail, (2) Others also did not allow it a sentence without detail (among them Malik);
Because of the generality of the hadith of the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and because they saw this as a change, so they interpreted the verse on it, (3) Some of them permitted connecting hair with wool and rags, and it was not permissible to connect hair with hair.
And all this disagreement, whether in terms of the confusion and interpretation of hadith or in terms of the jurisprudential schools in these actions, makes it clear that the act in itself is not ugly, but even the one who forbids it does not prohibit it for its own sake.
Hence we said: It was agreed that cosmetic surgery is permissible in cases of necessity and necessity.
The whole discussion remained about the reason for which the one who was forbidden was forbidden, but rather because of which the curse occurred, which usually comes to denote major sins.
The jurists differed in determining the reason, and this disagreement explains the story of Imam Al-Qarafi on the authority of Imam Ibn Rushd, the grandfather, saying: “I have not seen the Maliki, Shafi’i and other jurists explaining this hadith except that it is deception on the husbands, to increase friendship. This constitutes; (1) if they are aware of it (2) By tattooing, it does not involve deception. And what is in the hadith about “changing God’s creation” I did not understand its meaning, because changing one’s beauty is not forbidden in Sharia, such as circumcision, cutting nails and hair, dyeing henna, dyeing hair, and so on. This is a great imam of the size of Ibn Rushd who questions this hadith due to the ambiguity of its reason on the one hand, and the absence of its context on the other hand, which reveals the recklessness of those who imagine that just the apparent meaning of the hadith is sufficient to prove the prohibition!
Ibn al-Jawzi was also puzzled about identifying the cause, so he said: “The apparent meaning of these hadiths is the prohibition of these things that have been forbidden in any case, and Ibn Masoud has taken the term of this according to what we have narrated. It is possible that this can be attributed to one of three things: (1) Either it is That was the motto of immoral women, so what is meant by it is (2) or it is an effect to deceive a man, then this is not permissible, (3) or it involves changing the creation of God Almighty, such as tattooing that hurts and hurts the hand, and is hardly desirable, and perhaps the effect of the peel on the skin Immediate improvement, then skin damage later.
The reasons behind this cursing mentioned in these actions can be grouped into two categories:
The first category: ethical considerations related to various purposes, including:
1. Deception or deception of the husband to increase the dowry (which is a customary social issue).
This was mentioned by more than one, including Imam al-Qurtubi, the hadith author of the book al-Mufhim, Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, Imam al-Qarafi, al-Qadi Abd al-Wahhab, al-Khatib al-Sharbini and others.
2. The criterion of harm resulting from such actions, which is what many jurists went to, or the abuse that Ibn al-Jawzi spoke about, or the distortion referred to by al-Firuzabadi and Ibn Ashour, meaning that from change is what is reprehensible, and some of it is praiseworthy such as circumcision, clipping nails and pigment. Piercing women's ears to put earrings and adornment, shaving hair, and so on. In my estimation, such changes of goodness are issues related to culture and customs, so they are changing, and that is why Imam Ibn al-Faris said in the interpretation of the verse that talks about changing God’s creation: Likewise, it is permissible, and many issues are included under it, and the book is long in mentioning them, so I turned them away from that.” Imam Ibn Attia said in the interpretation of the verse: “And the angel of the interpretation of this verse: that every harmful change is in the verse, and every beneficial change is permissible.”
3. Being a motto for the immoral women, and it is an interpretation of the act in its customary or cultural meaning prevailing in the time of the text, and it is a changing sign, and more than one person has stipulated this connotation, including Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn Muflih, al-Mardawi and Ibn al-Mulqin. to fornication” i.e. at that time. And this is what Al-Tahir bin Ashour came to when he considered that “the purpose of it was to forbid traits that were considered among the traits of prostitutes in that covenant, or among the characteristics of polytheists.
The second category of ills: the doctrinal reference inherent in these actions or some of them, and this meaning was referred to by Imam Al-Khattabi when he considered that the prohibition of tattooing because it is “a work of the pre-Islamic era, and in it is a change of creation.” This meaning was also transmitted by Ibn Al-Mulqen and Al-Qari and others. It is also understood from the context of Ibn al-Farras' interpretation of the hadith about "the deeds of the people of ignorance because of their gods." Therefore, it was attributed to Satan’s act or embellishment for it. Ibn al-Faras said in explaining the verse of changing the creation: “And God Almighty attributed it to Satan, which is not a general matter, because from changing God’s creation is what is Sunnah, and from changing what is forbidden by agreement, and disliked by agreement. It is included in the verse, and some of it differs in it, and all of this is according to what the commentators have mentioned to the verse.”
Hence, the majority of the commentators (creation of God) in the verse assumed that it is the religion of God, which is what al-Tabari and others favored, although there is a marginal saying in the books of interpretation referring to the apparent change such as tattooing, peeling the face and others, which was weakened by more than one of the commentators such as al-Tabari, al-Maturidi and others. From the jurists who disagreed with the apparent meaning of the hadith; The context of the verse does not help to force it to the apparent change, and because the change is linked to Satan, and this is why Imam al-Maturidi ruled out the possibility that Satan wanted that apparent change; Because this determination is from Satan (so I command them, so let them repent...) it was on the day he asked his Lord to look at the day they would be resurrected, and it is unlikely that he had knowledge of what God’s law would reject as allowing or forbidding in this regard until he resolved to seduce God’s servants by violating it!
We are in front of an act that was apparently placed for good and beautification, but it took on other customary, cultural and religious connotations, and this meaning can be understood from the entirety of the saying of Imam Raghib Al-Isfahani: It is in terms of what was created for virtue and used for vice. To spoil and seduce, or to express doctrinal connotations, especially since tattoos refer to doctrinal symbols in denoting deities and the like in some cultures or peoples before they turn into adornment and beautify in the present era.
What confirms our division of these two categories of ills: that Ibn Attia and Ibn al-Faras - as previously - held that the angel of the verse revolves around criteria of benefit and harm, and that Ibn Ashour said that the angel of the verse revolves around “that changing God’s creation only takes place if there is a portion of God’s creation in it. Obedience to Satan, by making a sign of a demonic bee, as is the context of the verse and the connection of the hadith [the Prophet] to it.”
Such analysis and scrutiny help us grasp the cultural and social dimension in the texts, when they are related to changing semantics that no longer exist, and ignoring them puts us in a dilemma in understanding the Prophet’s hadith. Just standing at the apparent meaning of the word becomes unreasonable and puts us in conflict with other texts and meanings established in the Sharia!
The direct return of some muftis to the texts of the Qur’an and Hadith, in isolation from the exegetical, hadith and jurisprudential heritage, is a modern trend advocated by reformists and archaeologists; Under the illusion that it would solve the problem they imagined, while the mere direct return to the texts can be employed in every direction: analysis and prohibition; It has led to the transcendence of diversity or pluralism contained in the heritage of legal schools; In the interest of a single apparent understanding in most cases, and a technical implementation of some of the rules of scholars, such as the rule that cursing indicates that the action is major, without looking into the reasons for the prohibition, and is it for itself or for another? Is cursing - and hence the prohibition - commensurate with the reality of the act in the usual speech of the street? How was this text understood historically? Was it problematic? And why? What interpretations are available to him? Before Alstroh weighting and hasty assertion. We do not need the guidance of the Qur’an in His saying: (And say, “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”); The more knowledge a person has, the broader his horizon and chest of disagreement, and the broader the meaning in front of him in the multiplicity of its faces.