Congratulating non-Muslims on their holidays..Does moral and creedal contradictions?

It has become a ritual every year to witness discussions and debates on the issue of congratulating non-Muslims on their holidays (especially Christmas and New Year), as we find here two prominent groups:

The first group

mobilizes the texts in order to prove the sanctity of congratulations, and some of them even go to that this is blasphemy, and conveys that the prohibition is the approved of the four schools of jurisprudence, and that no one among the non-contemporaries has said that it is permissible.

In fact, I read to one of them that congratulating - on its own - is forbidden by all jurists (like this!).

The second

calls for general texts regarding benevolence to the People of the Book and being kind to them, and that the permissibility of marriage with them calls for being gentle with them and congratulating them.

And that faith and disbelief should not be involved in the matter;

Because it is a practical (juristic) issue, not a theoretical (doctrinal or verbal) issue;

In addition, it is one of the issues of the branches and not of the issues of the origins, and therefore it is not necessary to expiate in it.

Congratulations with dissatisfaction, and this is achieved by the congratulation coming for a permissible reason or a legitimate interest as previously mentioned, especially since the birthday of the Lord Christ, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, is the birthday of a prophet (and disagreement about his history does not matter, because it is like the disagreement about the date of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace. Peace be upon him) or like greetings for the new year, which is a permissible reason as well.

I was usually satisfied with observing from afar;

I did not consider this issue to be possible for all this controversy;

Because it has become one of the issues of customs that fall under the category of "honorable morals".

But the recent controversy prompted me to look at it from a different angle;

On the one hand, it is an example that joins many examples that illustrate our problem - we - with the doctrinal inheritance, and the decline of the scholars who are good at reading texts, and understanding historical and modern contexts, and then how to download this heritage to our reality;

Without being satisfied with a mere tale and quoting sayings: prohibition or analysis;

The previous two groups are satisfied with the transmission, and are unable to solve the problem represented - in my opinion - in the absence of the jurisprudence methodology and the investment of the jurisprudential text in the contemporary reality.

I can refer the problem here to several methodological issues:

• Linking subsidiary issues to their governing assets.

• The link between judgments (or evaluations) and their causes.

• The link between the provisions and the virtues under them.

The issue of congratulating the holidays around which this confusion is raised goes back to a jurisprudential origin that is extracted (or measured) in the books of jurisprudence. About its branch, which is congratulations, and therefore I will start here with a statement of the origin, then the branches on which it was built (including congratulations) and the link between them.

The schools of jurisprudence differed on the question of whether a non-Muslim should begin with the salaam, based on 4 sayings:

The first:

prohibition, which is the Shafi’i and Hanbali school of thought.

For roses of the Prophet's prohibition on it.

The second: It

is makrooh, which is the Maliki school of thought, and the Hanafi school of thought forbidding the hadith is only makrooh, and therefore they permitted it for the benefit as it will come.

The third:

Permissibility, and it is a view of the Shafi’is that was narrated by al-Mawardi, but al-Nawawi considered this aspect abnormal, and it is a narration on the authority of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and it was narrated from the companions: Ibn Abbas and Abu Umamah, and on the authority of some of the followers such as Ibn Abi Muhairiz.

They cited the generality of the hadiths ordering the divulging of peace to those you knew and those you did not know.

Al-Nawawi responded to this view.

On the pretext that it is general and has been specified, but I see that the generality remains in its origin, and perhaps these people saw that the hadeeths forbidding are contained on a specific reason, and therefore they are not able to single out the general in all its conditions and times.

Fourth:

Permissibility with the restriction of interest. The Hanafi school of thought is that there is nothing wrong with starting with the greeting;

If he has a need, and this is a third narration on the authority of Ahmed bin Hanbal, and Ibn Taymiyyah chose it, rather, Alaa Al-Din Al-Mardawi, one of the imams of the sect, said: It is the correct one.

Because of the severity of the dispute and its longevity, al-Awza’i tended to his care, and he said, “If you deliver, the righteous have delivered, and if you leave, the righteous have left.” The reason for the difference is due to two main things:

First:

There are prophetic hadiths that forbid the non-Muslim to begin with the greeting of peace, and I will not go into the possibilities of interpreting these hadiths: are they absolute or based on a special reason?

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah - for example - understood that it was specific to war, and that it came to the Jews of Banu Qurayzah, whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, went to war with, and therefore he forbade them to begin with peace;

Because peace is safety for them.

Based on this, the problem occurred when the hadiths forbidding them were carried out, then the discussion shifted from examining the context of its inclusion to examining the significance of the prohibition, and they are two different matters.

The second: the

reason for which the prohibition occurred. The general jurisprudents saw that the reason is veneration; To venerate the infidel requires venerating his infidelity. They did not separate a person from his belief; Especially in the context of dividing the world into the abode of war and the abode of Islam, Muslims and dhimma, with what is mentioned in the jizya of associating with young children in the Qur’an {until they give the tax out of hand while they are humble} (Surat al-Tawbah, verse 29). For this reason, Al-Nawawi said, “The choice is not to start it with some kindness in the first place, for that is a simplification for him, kindness, gentleness, and showing affection.” Those who favored the permissibility of this for the sake of necessity held that the prohibition (which is veneration here) is not included. Because the beginning of the salaam took place; For the sake of need, not for the sake of veneration, i.e., the initiation took place on a permissible cause that was not prohibited.

On this principle (which is the beginning of the salaam) can be discussed on several subsidiary issues such as visiting non-Muslims when they are sick, comforting them in their dead, congratulating them on their feasts and occasions, and answering the invitation of non-Muslims to occasions and banquets.

The jurists have stipulated this connection between the original and the offshoot, and the exclusion (or appendix) of these sub-issues to the issue of initiating the salaam;

Although a text was specifically mentioned in a non-Muslim clinic;

As the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, came back as a Jew, as is proven in the Sahih.

With regard to the clinic, we find that the dispute that occurred in peace took place here, and its explanation is as follows on 3 sayings:

The first

: the Shafi’i school of thought, who differed regarding clinic between what prevents it and what is desirable for it, but what the Shafi’i books tend towards is a distinction between two matters: the permissibility of clinic in the case of the general dhimmi, and the desirability of the clinic (and that it is a kindness) in the case of whether this dhimmi is a relative, neighbor, or the like And their text says: It is desirable to visit “a sick Muslim, even an enemy, and someone he does not know, as well as a dhimmi relative or a neighbor or the like, and someone whose Islam is hoped for. Rather, some Shafi’is - such as al-Adhra’i - expanded the circle and included with the dhimmi (citizen from the house of Islam) others such as institutes and the trustee (citizens from outside the house of Islam); If they are the home of Islam.

It is clear that the proximity of the non-Muslim’s clinic is based on the sanctity that was associated with the clinic, that is, it became a clinic for the sake of sickness and for other rights such as neighborhood and kinship or for da’wah. Endowed on the type of inviolability associated with it: from a neighborhood or kinship.” This was approved by some of the later Shafi’is.

These explanations explain the difference between the Shafi’is forbidding a non-Muslim from beginning the salutation, and the desirability of visiting him.

Because both verbs have a meaning other than the other, and it was looked at religious meanings based on the textual interpretation in terms of making the patient’s clinic on the general patients without discrimination, and since they saw the possibility of the closeness occurring in the clinic of the infidel, and this is not achieved in the beginning with peace;

Because peace has acquired two characteristics: the first: religious in that it is a means of worship, and that it is a right of a Muslim over a Muslim, and the second: political in that it means giving safety to a non-Muslim in the context of the hegemony of dividing the world into a house of Islam and a house of war, and dividing the non-Muslims into: dhimmi, warrior, covenant or lessee.

The second saying

: The Hanbali school of thought, whose books summarize the three issues together: congratulating the dhimmis, condoling them, and visiting them. The imams of the school (such as Ibn Muflih, Al-Mardawi and others) state that there is a difference here, and that the doctrine has 3 narrations on the authority of Ahmad, which are:

The third

view

The Hanafi and Maliki school of thought, which is that there is nothing wrong with the clinic, that is, it is permissible, and even the meaning of kinship takes place in it, as previously stated by the Shafi’is.

The clinic is like congratulations and condolences;

Unity of origin, as mentioned above, and Muhammad ibn al-Qasim from the Malikis disliked for a Muslim to gift a Christian on his feast as a reward for him, and he saw that this gift is a matter of venerating his feast and helping him in the interest of his infidelity.

The Malikis returned here to the principle of dislike that is in the beginning with peace, and that it is hateful veneration and not forbidden, and the same took place in congratulations and even gifts on Eid.

Based on the original and the branches attached to it (including congratulations), we conclude two main things here:

First:

Proving the jurisprudential dispute in the branches attached to the original (congratulations, condolences and clinic) based on its proven origin (starting with the greeting) and based on the verification of the cause or not (which is the glorification of the infidel and his infidelity).

The reason for the prohibition in the three attached branches is the same as the one noted in the original, and some jurists have stated this similarity between the beginning of the greeting and its branches attached to it, which is the glorification of the infidel and his belief together without separating them; So that the “loyalty and consolidation of affection” that elicits veneration and signs of violating the contained prohibition occurs according to their interpretation. For this reason, when the reason for veneration was denied by the presence of another permissible reason (such as a need or necessity) or by the existence of an interest (such as the right of neighborliness, kinship, kinship or invitation), the permissible reason or interest prevailed, and it was said that it is permissible in all. From the “honorable morals,” and that it is a “kind of righteousness” in the case of the dhimmis; Because their clinic is a “kind of benevolence” for them, so when righteousness is lawful, clinic and communication with a dhimmi are lawful; Unlike Al-Harbi (from the people of Dar Al-Harb); We were prohibited from righteousness by the text of the Qur’an, while we were not prohibited from righteousness of peaceful infidels.What takes place in the clinic of the infidel takes place in the rest of the branches as long as there is no legal impediment in it (such as participating in the rituals of outright infidelity, for example, and this is outside the topic of discussion in the first place).

This statement and analysis clarifies the extent of the problem among the contemporaries who delved into the issue in terms of analysis and prohibition.

They did not edit it on its face. Rather, some of those who classified it as “Consensus in Islamic Jurisprudence” mentioned the consensus on the sanctity of congratulations.

Depending on what we say about Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, it is problematic;

Especially since Ibn Taymiyyah himself chose permissibility in the original issue (beginning with greetings) and in secondary issues (such as congratulations, clinic and condolences) but with the restriction of interest.

The problem - which was confused by the forbidden here and was not edited by the legalists - is that the Hanbali books were released without division or detail, so the phrase "congratulating them, their condolences and their clinic" was used, then Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyah came and entered into the discussion an issue that is outside the dispute originally when he divided the congratulations into two parts:

Then Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya held the disagreement of the jurists in congratulating the first part here, and he spoke of the agreement on the sanctity of the second part, which is a universal matter (the rituals of infidelity) subject to agreement. Hence it was understood from the words of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya that congratulating on the occasion of Eid is only congratulating on other matters (rites of infidelity such as the cross and the divinity of Jesus and the like), rather it is satisfaction with that, and this was not said by anyone before him, so no one disputes the sanctity of congratulating with doctrinal matters contrary to the doctrine of Islam (such as raising the cross ) or with reprehensible matters that are forbidden in Sharia (such as fornication and drinking alcohol). Rather, a Muslim is sinning by simply intending to do that, even if he does not do it, but the scholars’ words about the generality of congratulations are mentioned for worldly reasons, and congratulations on Eid also include; Because it is a worldly matter, and from here the dispute over congratulation revolves around the conflict in its origin, which is the beginning of the greeting.

Then Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyah continued - on this division and the story of the consensus on the prohibition of congratulating the holidays - some of the late Hanbalites, and the Wahhabis such as Abd al-Rahman bin Qasim al-Najdi (d. 1392 AH) and arranged on this the possibility of atonement; In the case of congratulations accompanied by satisfaction. And Ibn Taymiyyah had considered that “consenting in all of the feasts is congruence with disbelief, and concurring in some of its branches is concordance with some people of disbelief.” Rather, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya mentioned in the first section of the congratulation the possibility of unbelief as well when he said “to warn [the congratulater] of falling into what falls into it The ignorant are among the expressions that indicate his approval of his religion..” And he said in the second section, “This is if the one who says it is free of disbelief, then it is forbidden.” Then Ibn Uthaymeen came and walked on this division and asserted it in his lessons and explanations, and he said: “As for congratulating holidays, this is undoubtedly forbidden, and perhaps a person will not be safe from disbelief, because congratulating them on the holidays of unbelief is satisfaction with it, and contentment with unbelief is disbelief.”He recounted the agreement on that according to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, while the agreement is on the general principle (congratulating the rites of infidelity) and not on the particular issue (congratulating the feast).

In fact, congratulations on the rituals of infidelity are not received from a Muslim, let alone that the jurists are preoccupied with explaining its ruling here.

But the problem here lies in defining the concept of the rituals of unbelief and whether congratulations on holidays are included in them or not, and on the assumption that they come under the jurisdiction of the non-Muslim;

Does every congratulation require satisfaction with infidelity?

If that was the case, the dhimma contract itself would be problematic, especially since some jurists defined it as “the approval of some infidels on their disbelief, provided that the tax is paid and the rules of the religion are adhered to.” And since the acknowledgment of the dhimmi in disbelief in the home of Islam does not necessitate approval of his disbelief, so congratulating him on his remoteness has no connection. Her consent to his infidelity or support for his belief.

Here, in congratulating non-Muslims, we can assume 3 possibilities:

The first:

congratulations with contentment with their belief, and this violates the condition of the validity of faith, which must be based on certainty that is not mixed with doubt, and thus it becomes clear to you that practical issues are related to theoretical issues in Sharia, even if some of them imagine a complete separation between them, and there are many examples of this in Sharia, and therefore no This entry is suitable for editing the issue.

The second:

congratulations with dissatisfaction, and this is achieved by the fact that the congratulation is given for a permissible reason or a legitimate interest as previously mentioned, especially since the birthday of Christ, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, is the birthday of a prophet (and disagreement about his date does not matter, it is like the disagreement about the date of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace). peace be upon him) or like greetings for the new year, which is a permissible reason as well.

The third: the

lack of intention at all, and considering that congratulations are among the habits that do not require an intention, and therefore it is carried on noble morals, and that it is a matter of courtesy.

The face of the confusion becomes clear in the words of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and this division or probabilities is supported by what I found from the words of Qadi Khan al-Hanafi (592 AH), who said in his fatwas: “A man bought something on the Day of Nowruz that he did not buy on other than that day: (1) If he wanted to venerate that. Today, as the infidels venerate it, it is unbelief (2) and if he does that for the sake of extravagance and luxury, not to glorify the day, it is not unbelief (3) and if he gives something on the Day of Nowruz to a person and it is not intended to glorify the day, but doing that according to the custom of people is not unbelief.” This also confirms that gifting on the day and not merely congratulating is a possibility; It was previously reported on the authority of Muhammad ibn al-Qasim from the Maliki school that he considered it makrooh only.

We stopped the previous three possibilities on the face of ambiguity in congratulating Eid, and therefore they are left to the purposes of the taxpayers themselves, but they are based on people’s customs and customs in that they are like courtesies and noble morals; It cannot be imagined of a Muslim accepting infidelity, or that merely congratulating him is an adoption of the belief of the one who congratulates him. Moreover, the holidays are not accepted as purely religious rites; They have become more cultural than religious occasions. Moreover, saying that the absolute of the feast is a ritual of infidelity is not correct; Congratulating a birthday is different from congratulating the cross or the divinity of Jesus or any other forbidden abomination. Moreover, congratulations, clinics, and the like are not only permissible, but are confirmed and include the meaning of kinship with its connection to virtues such as neighborhood, kinship, good morals, and so on, as previously mentioned in the clinic and it is carried out in the rest of the attached branches.

What confirms that the whole discussion is about the reasoning and the realization of the rule (the forbidding to start with the greeting, and what is attached to it) the difference of the jurists in the same act with their agreement on the reason for the existence and non-existence. Neither condiment nor clothing, nor lending an animal, nor suffering for any part of their religion, because that is to glorify their polytheism and help them in their unbelief,” as Ibn al-Hajj al-Maliki said, while the Hanbali school of thought is that “it is not forbidden for Muslims to sell to dhimmis on their feasts, because it does not contain veneration.” for them". You see how the Malikis and Hanbalis agreed on the prohibition of glorifying and aiding infidelity, but they differed as to the extent of the significance of this particular act on it. The same applies to the concept of congratulating the feast and defining the meaning of “the rituals of infidelity that pertain to them.”Which has been subject to historical changes, and follows people’s customs and their intentions as well, and does not run on mere words and phenomena, and thus also the face of the confusion caused by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s words in the discussion about congratulations when he brought into the discussion an issue that is outside the dispute originally.

The last and fundamental matter here is that the concept of dhimma - which is the origin of the fundamentals here - no longer exists in whole or in part, let alone the issues related to it and based on it, starting with the division of the world and ending with the beginning of peace, which is the basis on which the three issues are carried: clinic, congratulations and condolences, which This means that all the discussion is taking place outside history today. Indeed, many branches of jurisprudence related to the principle of glorification and humiliation or honoring the little ones have been erased because the whole origin has become a part of history, from those branches: raising the edifice of the dhimmis over Muslims, creating churches and selling, and manifesting evil, The striking of the bell, the loudness of their book, their compulsion to the narrowest roads, and other branches that do not concern the arguing today about congratulations; Although it has a single origin and a single cause, it also obliges them to say it.This is how the picture of our discussions about congratulations on Eid appears caricature, and jurisprudence with many speakers and even muftis appears as if it were an authoritarian or formal act, and the jurisprudence is absent and the philosophy of jurisprudence is absent, and the fatwa turns into mere selective and fragmentary quotes from books or a tale of sayings without system or law, and thus we realize The value of Imam Abu Al-Ma’ali Al-Juwayni’s saying when he said: “The one who relied on memorization does not rely on memorizing matters of jurisprudence, nor does he refer to a case, acumen, and a printed jurisprudence (1), for portraying its issues first and listing their images on their faces is only done by a jurist (2) Then transfer the doctrines after the completion of photography It can only come from an eminent expert in jurisprudence, so the transmission of issues of jurisprudence does not come down to the status of transmitting news, stories and antiquities (3) and if the transmission is imposed in the clear by someone who is confident in his memorization trusted in his honesty, it is not possible to impose the transmission of hidden things without independence with knowledge” and God Almighty knows.