What Criteria Makes A Normal Action Become A Sin Under Sadd-e-Zariya Pt 2
@Irfan76 No sir I didn’t mean about Zina. I was just speaking about the general rule that, for something to fall under category of sadd e zariya, and hence into prohibition. Should that qualify to the point that it causes directly and mainly that particular major sin, so now this act becomes negative as it’s main effect (or one of the main effect) is to cause that major sin? Only then it would fall in it?
@Irfan76 https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/lawbase/maliki_fiqh/usul11.html Sir in this article the discussion about sadd e zariya is made. The summary for it is made by chatgpt like this. Thanks — now that you’ve shared the full passage, I can clearly summarize the part you’re interested in: the four categories of actions in terms of how strongly they lead to harm, as discussed by Imam Al-Shatibi under the principle of سد الذرائع — Blocking the Means. ✅ Summary of the Four Categories of Actions Based on Likelihood of Leading to Harm (According to Al-Shatibi) Category Description Ruling Approach 1. That which definitely leads to harm An action that certainly results in harm, with no realistic escape from the harmful outcome. Completely forbidden, even if the action itself is normally permissible — because harm is guaranteed. 2. That which rarely leads to harm An action that can lead to harm, but very rarely — most of the time it is harmless. Remains permissible, because Sharī‘ah does not prohibit things based on rare possibilities. 3. That which often/probably leads to harm An action that frequently causes harm, but not with 100% certainty. There is strong likelihood of harm happening. Generally prohibited to prevent expected harm — this is the core use of blocking the means. 4. That which sometimes leads to harm but not to a likely/probable degree There is some chance of harm occurring, but not enough for it to be called “likely” — just possible. Difference of opinion among scholars: • Abu Hanifa & Al-Shafi‘i: Permit it based on original permissibility • Imam Malik: Prohibits it as precaution, because avoiding harm takes priority 🧠 Easy Example to Explain It to Someone Scenario: Category: Example: Ruling: -> Digging a hole at someone’s doorway at night so they will fall -> Definitely leads to harm -> Category 1 -> Forbidden ——————————————- Digging a well in your own garden where no one normally passes Rarely leads to harm Category 2 Permitted ——————————————- Selling weapons during civil war time Often / probably leads to harm Category 3 Forbidden ——————————————- Selling grapes to someone who might use them for wine-making Possibly leads to harm but not always Category 4 ——————————————- Disagreement — Malik would forbid, others might allow 📌 Core Principle Behind All This Islamic law does not just judge intentions — it judges results and consequences. If an action likely leads to harm, it may be forbidden even if the doer had a good intention. Sir my question is that does this categorization relates to benefits and harms in a society? Or this relates also to the case when the discussion is about personal sin also? For example if i do something which if done guarantees some benefits but some sins also… So would I have to measure what is more ? I am a little confused about this concept
You have signed up for a test in this world. You can’t escape it. Whereever You go whatever you say the chance to commit a sin is there. So do not avoid anything and try to be upright.