The walima (wedding feast)

The six sheets below are taken from the chapter on the walima, the wedding feast, in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence (al-Mawsu'ah al-fiqhiyyah). They cover in turn the status of the walima itself, the duty to accept its invitation, the conditions of that obligation, the case of a guest invited to two feasts on the same day, the scattering of sweets (nathr), and the kissing of bread. The positions of the four schools are cited with their classical references, and the hadiths with their sources and gradings.

The Ruling on the Walima

The foods to which people are invited are ten:

• The first: the walima, already mentioned.
• The second: al-'adhirah and al-i'dhar, the meal of circumcision.
• The third: al-khurs, also called al-khursiyyah, the meal given at a birth.
• The fourth: al-wakhirah, the invitation offered to builders.
• The fifth: al-naqi'ah, the meal given on the return of an absent one.
• The sixth: the 'aqiqah, the sacrifice slaughtered for the child.
• The seventh: al-hidhaq, the meal given when the young boy begins to walk.
• The eighth: al-ma'dubah, any invitation, whether it has a cause or not.
• The ninth: al-wadhi'ah, the meal of mourning.
• The tenth: al-tuhfah, the meal given to one who arrives as a visitor ("Al-Bayan" (9/479, 480), "Sharh Sahih Muslim" (9/217), "Al-Mughni" (7/212), "Al-Matla'" p. 328).

The people of knowledge are agreed that the wedding walima is prescribed. Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reports:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw a trace of yellow scent on 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf and said: "What is this?" He replied: "I have married a woman for the weight of a date stone of gold." He said: "May Allah bless you; hold a wedding feast, even if only with a sheep."

Reported by Bukhari (4860) and Muslim (1427)

Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never held a walima for any of his wives more abundant or better than the one he held for Zaynab: he served them bread and meat until they left some of it" (reported by Bukhari (4873) and Muslim (1428), the wording being that of Muslim).

Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) also reports: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) arrived at Khaybar; when Allah opened the fortress for him, the beauty of Safiyyah bint Huyayy ibn Akhtab was mentioned to him, her husband having been killed and she being a new bride. The Messenger of Allah chose her for himself and traveled with her until we reached the dam of al-Rawha', where she became pure. He consummated the marriage with her, then prepared a hays (a paste of mashed dates with butter) in a small leather platter, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Let those around you know of it." That was the walima of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) for Safiyyah (reported by Bukhari (2120)).

It is recommended to hold the walima with a sheep if one is able, according to the Messenger of Allah's (peace and blessings be upon him) words to 'Abd al-Rahman: "hold a wedding feast, even if only with a sheep." Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never held a walima for any of his wives like the one for Zaynab: he held a walima with a sheep" (Bukhari (4873) and Muslim (1428)). If he holds the walima with something else, it is permitted: "the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) held a walima for Safiyyah with hays, and a walima for some of his wives with two mudds of barley," reported by Bukhari.

The jurists nevertheless differ: is the wedding walima obligatory or recommended?

The Malikis, in one view, and the Shafi'is, in one opinion (it is also said: in one view), hold that the wedding walima is an individual obligation ('ayn). They rely on the imperative sense of the hadith of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf (may Allah be pleased with him): "hold a wedding feast, even if only with a sheep," a command that indicates obligation. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) indeed never married without holding a walima, in hardship or in ease, and "he held a walima for Safiyyah during his journey with sawiq (toasted grain flour) and dates. Moreover, the walima is an announcement of the marriage distinguishing it from fornication, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Announce the marriages and beat the drums (duff) for them.

Finally, since accepting the invitation is obligatory, the act of the walima itself is obligatory: the obligation of the effect proves that of the cause ("Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/301, 302), "Al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" (3/199), "Tahrir al-Mukhtar" (3/83, 84), "Al-Hawi al-Kabir" (9/556, 557), "Rawdat al-Talibin" (5/196), "Al-Najm al-Wahhaj" (7/373), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/401)).

The majority of scholars, the Hanafis, the Malikis in the well-known view (mashhur), the Shafi'is according to the school, and the Hanbalis, hold the wedding walima to be a recommended sunnah, based on the preceding hadiths. It is a meal given for a new joy, like all other meals. Its cause, the marriage contract, is not obligatory: its branch has even more reason not to be. Were it obligatory, it would have a fixed amount like zakah and the expiations, and a substitute in case of incapacity, like the one who cannot slaughter and fasts instead; the absence of a fixed amount and a substitute proves that its obligation has fallen away.

The Duty to Accept the Invitation

The Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) command to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf to hold a walima even with a sheep is understood as a recommendation: he indeed commanded "a sheep," and there is no dispute that the walima is not obligatory. If the command entailed obligation, the walima would be obligatory; but it is not, by consensus, neither as an individual nor as a collective duty. The interpretation given for obligation has no basis and is false by agreement: the walima is not obligatory, while answering the salam is ("Al-Ikhtiyar" (4/222), "Al-Binayah Sharh al-Hidayah" (12/84), "Al-Tamhid" (2/189), "Al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" (2/627), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/301, 302), "Al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" (3/199), "Tahrir al-Mukhtar" (3/83, 84), "Al-Hawi al-Kabir" (8/556, 557), "Al-Bayan" (9/481), "Rawdat al-Talibin" (5/196), "Al-Najm al-Wahhaj" (7/371, 373), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/400, 401), "Sharh Sahih Muslim" (9/217), "Al-Mughni" (7/212), "Kashshaf al-Qina'" (5/185), "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat" (5/289), "Manar al-Sabil" (3/32)).

Status of acceptance: the jurists of the four schools, except for one Shafi'i view, agree that one invited to a walima other than a wedding feast is not obliged to attend. They differ, however, on accepting an invitation to a wedding walima: is it obligatory for the invitee, or merely recommended?

The majority of jurists, the Hanafis, the Malikis in the well-known view, the Shafi'is according to the school, and the Hanbalis according to the school, hold that whoever is personally invited to a wedding walima in which there is no unlawful entertainment must accept, even while fasting, unless he has an excuse; otherwise he is a sinner, according to what 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) reports from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him):

"When one of you is invited to a walima, let him attend it."

Reported by Bukhari (4878) and Muslim (1429)

In a version: "When one of you is invited to a wedding walima, let him accept" (Muslim (1429)). Nafi' reports that 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Accept this invitation when you are invited to it"; and 'Abdullah used to attend invitations, at weddings and elsewhere, while fasting (Bukhari (4884) and Muslim (1429)).

Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) used to say:

"The worst food is that of the walima to which the rich are invited and from which the poor are excluded. Whoever declines the invitation has disobeyed Allah, the Most High, and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)."

Reported by Bukhari (4882) and Muslim (1432)

Such a statement cannot be a personal opinion; it can only be transmitted knowledge (tawqif). This hadith is a proof of the obligation to accept the walima invitation, and there is no disagreement over that among the Companions and the Successors, to the point that Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "I know of no disagreement over the obligation to attend a walima for the one invited to it, when there is nothing blameworthy or entertaining in it." His words in this hadith, "has disobeyed Allah and His Messenger," remove the problem and make further elaboration unnecessary ("Al-Tamhid" (10/179)).

The meaning of his words, "the worst food is that of the walima" (and Allah knows best), is: the walima to which the rich are invited and from which the poor are excluded. He did not mean that the food of every walima is the worst; otherwise he would not have commanded it to be held, nor recommended it, nor commanded acceptance of its invitation, nor held one himself. In any case, acceptance becomes obligatory by the invitation: whoever is invited must accept.

If he is fasting an obligatory fast, it is not permissible for him to break it, by consensus; he accepts the invitation and supplicates (Allah) for the host of the walima.

If it is a voluntary fast, the scholars differ:

• For the Hanafis and the Malikis, breaking it is not permitted, because the fast becomes obligatory once begun, as explained in the chapter on fasting, according to the words of the Most High:

"And do not render your deeds vain"

Surah Muhammad, 33

Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), raised to him:

"When one of you is invited, let him accept; if he is fasting, let him supplicate (for the host), and if he is not fasting, let him eat."

Reported by Muslim (1431)

It is recommended to inform them of his fast: it is reported that 'Uthman and Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) did so, so that they would know his excuse and suspicion would be removed.

The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis say: fasting does not remove the obligation to accept. If the voluntary fast burdens the inviter, breaking it is better than completing the fast, even late in the day, to comfort the inviter; it is reported that "at an invitation where a group was present, a man of the people withdrew to one side, and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'Your brother invited you and bore the expense for you'; then he told him: 'Break your fast and fast another day in its place if you wish'" (a good hadith: reported by al-Bayhaqi (8146) and al-Tabarani in "Al-Awsat" (3240); al-Haythami (4/53): it contains Hammad ibn Abi Humayd, who is weak; the rest of its men are trustworthy).

The shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the most balanced view is that if, while present at the walima in a state of fasting, the inviter's heart is hurt by the food not being eaten, eating is preferable; if his heart is not hurt, completing the fast is preferable. The host should not insist on making the invitee eat when he declines, since both courses are permitted: compelling him to what is not obligatory for him belongs to the kind of questioning that is forbidden. As for the invitee, he should not refuse if he sees that his refusal brings harms: breaking his fast is permitted; if leaving a permitted act entails feared consequences, the permitted act should be done, and it may even become obligatory. But if accepting brings only the benefit of acceptance while carrying the evil of suspicion, refraining is weightier ("Al-Fatawa al-Kubra" (4/558)).

Ibn al-Qassar among the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one opinion, and the Hanbalis in a narration chosen by Ibn Taymiyyah hold that accepting the walima invitation is recommended, not obligatory.

The Shafi'is in one opinion and the Hanbalis in one view hold it to be a collective obligation (fard kifayah): if some people accept, the obligation falls from the rest, the aim being that it be known and manifest, which the acceptance of some achieves; acceptance is moreover an act of honor and of allegiance, like returning the salam ("Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama'" (2/293, 294), "Sharh Mukhtasar al-Tahawi" by al-Jassas (4/436), "Al-Ikhtiyar" (4/222), "Al-Binayah Sharh al-Hidayah" (12/84), "Al-Tamhid" (2/189), "Al-Istidhkar" (5/529, 531), "Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" (7/289), "Al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" (2/627), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/302), "Al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" (3/200), "Tahrir al-Mukhtar" (3/85), "Al-Hawi al-Kabir" (8/556, 557), "Al-Bayan" (9/482, 483), "Rawdat al-Talibin" (5/196, 197), "Al-Najm al-Wahhaj" (7/374), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/401), "Sharh Sahih Muslim" (9/217), "Al-Mughni" (7/212), "Al-Insaf" (8/318), "Kashshaf al-Qina'" (5/185, 186), "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat" (5/286, 289), "Manar al-Sabil" (3/32)).

Conditions of the Obligation to Accept

The jurists lay down conditions whose fulfillment makes acceptance obligatory:

• First, that the person be designated by the invitation. Acceptance is obligatory only for the one designated: a specific man, a specified group, or when the messenger says to him: "So-and-so ordered me to invite you, accept." But if the public announcer cries out: "O people, accept the walima invitation!", or the messenger says: "I have been ordered to invite everyone I meet, or whomever I wish," acceptance is not obligatory according to the majority of jurists, the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, and not even recommended explicitly according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: the invitee is not designated, so acceptance is not assigned to him, and the inviter's heart is not broken by a refusal. Accepting nonetheless remains permitted, since it falls under the generality of the invitation ("Al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" (2/627), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/303), "Al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" (3/200), "Tahrir al-Mukhtar" (3/85), "Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir" (5/212), "Al-Bayan" (9/484), "Al-Mughni" (7/213), "Kashshaf al-Qina'" (5/184, 185), "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat" (5/286, 289)).
• Second, that the invitation not be restricted to the rich: the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis state this explicitly.
• Third, that the inviter be a Muslim: otherwise his acceptance is not obligatory, since affection is not sought with him; the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the sahih view, and the Hanbalis state this explicitly. Accepting the Muslim's invitation is an act of honor, allegiance and affirmation of love and brotherhood; it is therefore not obligatory for a Muslim toward a dhimmi. Nor can one be sure that their food is free of the unlawful and impurity; nevertheless, accepting their invitation is permitted, according to what Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reports: "a Jew invited the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to barley bread and sanikh cheese, and he accepted his invitation" (reported by Ahmad (13887)). The Shafi'is, in one view, make it obligatory on the strength of the general reports.
• Fourth, that the invitee also be a Muslim: if a Muslim invites a disbeliever, the disbeliever is not obliged to accept.
• Fifth, that the invitation be on the first day: if the walima lasts three days or more, accepting on the second day is definitively not obligatory, though it is recommended then, and disliked on the third day and beyond, according to the hadith: "The walima is a right on the first day, a good deed on the second, and showing off and reputation-seeking on the third" (a weak hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (3745), Ibn Majah (1915) and Ahmad (20340)). The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis state this explicitly ("Minhat al-Suluk fi Sharh Tuhfah al-Muluk" p. 478, "Al-Bayan" (9/485), "Rawdat al-Talibin" (5/198, 199), "Al-Najm al-Wahhaj" (7/375), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/403), "Al-Mughni" (7/213, 216), "Manar al-Sabil" (3/33)).
• Sixth, that one not attend out of fear or coveting of rank: the Shafi'is state this explicitly ("Rawdat al-Talibin" (5/198, 199), "Al-Najm al-Wahhaj" (7/375), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/403)).
• Seventh, that no one be present who is a bother, or whose company is unbecoming, such as the rabble: the invitee is then excused for absenting himself, on account of the harm in the first case and the disgrace in the second; the Malikis and the Shafi'is state this explicitly ("Al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" (2/627), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/303), "Al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" (3/200), "Tahrir al-Mukhtar" (3/85), "Al-Bayan" (9/485), "Rawdat al-Talibin" (5/198, 199), "Al-Najm al-Wahhaj" (7/375), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/403)).
• Eighth, that there be no unlawful act (munkar) present, such as wine or dancing: if his presence removes the wrong, he must attend for certain, both accepting the invitation and removing the wrong; if his presence does not remove it, attending is unlawful, since it amounts to approving the wrong. If he is unaware of it until he arrives, he forbids them from it; if they do not desist, he must leave, unless he fears them, as on a dark night: he then stays reluctantly, his heart disapproving, and he does not listen to what is unlawful to listen to; occupying himself with conversation and eating is permitted to him, as if it were happening near his house where he would not be required to move even if the sound reached him.

If the wrong is a matter of disagreement, such as drinking nabidh or sitting on silk, attending is unlawful for the one who holds it unlawful: this is the explicit position of the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis ("Al-Najm al-Wahhaj" (7/376), "Mughni al-Muhtaj" (4/403), "Al-Mughni" (7/213, 216), "Manar al-Sabil" (3/33)).

The Malikis say: the obligation to accept falls away if there is present a wrong such as cushions, silk, images on the walls of the place or on the curtain, the use of gold or silver vessels, or hearing what it is unlawful to hear, from a singing woman or an instrument, even from another place than the one where one sits, if one hears or sees; otherwise not.

There is no harm in attending with permitted entertainment, such as the duff (tambourine) and the kubar (lance play) engaged in by men or women, or light singing: the obligation to accept does not fall away, even in the presence of a person of standing according to the soundest view, such as a scholar, a judge or an emir ("Al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" (2/627), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/303, 304), "Al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" (3/200, 201), "Tahrir al-Mukhtar" (3/85, 86)).

Imam Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: when one is invited to a walima containing disobedience, such as wine, the flute (zamr) and the 'ud (lute), and one is able to denounce it and remove the wrong, attending and denouncing become obligatory; one thereby fulfills two obligations: answering one's Muslim brother and removing the wrong. If one is not able to denounce, one does not attend; if one learns of the wrong only upon arriving, one removes it; if one is not able, one withdraws. Al-Shafi'i said the like of this.

Malik said: as for light entertainment, such as the duff and the kubar, there is no turning back (the invitation is not voided); Ibn al-Qasim said this, while Asbagh said: I prefer that one withdraw. Abu Hanifah said: if there is play, there is no harm in sitting and eating. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: if he is one whose example is followed, I prefer that he leave. And al-Layth said: if it involves striking the 'ud, he should not attend it.

The basis for this is what Safinah reports: a man hosted 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and prepared food for him. Fatimah said: "If only we invited the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to eat with us! They invited him; he came, placed his hands on the two door posts, saw an ornate curtain in a corner of the house and turned back. Fatimah said to 'Ali: "Go after him and say to him: what made you return, O Messenger of Allah?

He replied: "It is not for me to enter an adorned house" (a good hadith).

Abu Hafs reports with his chain that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

"Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day shall not sit at a table over which wine is passed."

A good hadith: reported by al-Darimi (2092), al-Nasa'i in "Al-Kubra" (6714) and al-Hakim in "Al-Mustadrak" (7779)

Nafi' said: "I was walking with 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar; he heard a shepherd's flute, put his two fingers into his two ears and turned aside from the road, all the while asking: 'Nafi', do you hear?' until I said: no. He then took his fingers out of his ears, returned to the road, and said: 'This is how I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) act'" (a sahih hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (4924), Ahmad (4535) and Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" (693)). For otherwise one witnesses the wrong and hears it without need: one is therefore prevented from it, as one would be if one could remove it.

As for one who has a neighbor settled upon the wrong and music, it is permitted for him to stay at home: it is a case of necessity, given the harm in leaving one's dwelling.

Section: if he sees engravings and pictures of trees and the like, there is no harm in that: they are engravings, like the marks on a cloth. If there are pictures of animals in a place that is trodden or leaned upon, such as those on carpets and cushions, that too is permitted, even if they are on curtains and walls. What is not trodden upon and whose heads one can break or efface: one does so and sits; if one cannot, one withdraws without sitting. This is the position of most of the people of knowledge; Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: this is the most balanced view; it is reported from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, Salim, 'Urwah, Ibn Sirin, 'Ata', 'Ikrimah ibn Khalid, 'Ikrimah the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas, and Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and it is the school of al-Shafi'i.

Abu Hurayrah, like Malik, disliked images, both hung and spread out; Malik, however, saw in this only scrupulousness, not prohibition. They may have held to the generality of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) words: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is an image" (agreed upon).

It is reported from Ibn Mas'ud: "he was invited to a meal; when he was told, 'There is an image in the house,' he refused to go until it was broken. Against this stands what 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reports: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) returned from a journey; I had absent-mindedly covered my window with a curtain bearing figures; when he saw it, he said: 'You cover the window with a curtain bearing figures?' and tore it. She said: I made two cushions from it, and it was as if I could still see the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) reclining against one of them" (reported by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr). For what is trodden upon and put to use is neither honored nor magnified, and thus does not resemble the idols that are worshipped and taken as deities; and what we report is more specific than what they report.

It is also reported that Abu Talhah was told: "Did not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say: the angels do not enter a house in which there is an image or a dog? He said: Did you not hear him say: except an engraving on a garment? (agreed upon). The statement is interpreted as we have said: permitted is what is spread out, disliked is what is hung up, as 'Aishah's hadith proves ("Al-Mughni" (7/213, 216)).

Ninth, that his wealth not come from the unlawful.

The Hanbalis state explicitly that acceptance is obligatory when the inviter's earnings are pure; if there is the unlawful in his wealth, accepting his invitation, dealing with him, and accepting his gift, his donation and his charity are disliked, the dislike strengthening or weakening according to how abundant or scarce the unlawful is. Al-Mardawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: on the permissibility of eating from the wealth of one whose wealth contains the unlawful, there are several views:

• The first: absolute prohibition. Al-Azaji said in "Al-Nihayah": this is the school's analogy, as we said regarding pure vessels suspected of impurity; it is the apparent sense of the qadi's reasoning, and Abu al-Khattab preferred it in "Al-Intisar". Ibn 'Aqil reports in "Al-Funun", regarding vessels whose purity is unknown: Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "I do not like that he eat from it." Al-Marwazi was asked about the one who deals in riba and eats at his place; he said: no. It is said in "Al-Ri'ayah al-Kubra", in its etiquette: one does not eat anything mixed with the unlawful without necessity.
• The second: if the unlawful exceeds a third, eating is prohibited; otherwise not; he preferred it in "Al-Ri'ayah", the third serving as a gauge in several places.
• The third: if the unlawful is the majority, eating is prohibited; otherwise not, the majority standing in place of the whole; Ibn al-Jawzi decided this in "Al-Minhaj". Al-Athram and others report from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), regarding the one who inherits wealth containing the unlawful: if he knows a specific item, he returns it; if corruption dominates his wealth, he should be scrupulous about it, or the like. Al-Harb reports, regarding the man who leaves behind wealth: if the greater part of it comes from plunder or riba, it befits his heir to be scrupulous about it, unless it is slight and unidentifiable. It is also reported from him: may a man seek from the heirs of a deceased person wealth for a mudarabah benefiting them both? He said: if most of it is unlawful, no.
• The fourth: no absolute prohibition, whether the unlawful is little or much; but it is disliked, and the dislike strengthens or weakens according to the proportion of the unlawful. This is decided in "Al-Mughni" and "Al-Sharh", said by Ibn 'Aqil in his "Fusul" and others, and preferred by al-Azaji and others. The author (Ibn Qudamah) said: this is the school as we established it in the Khutbah, stated in absolute terms in "Al-Furu'" in the chapter on voluntary charity, in "Al-Adab al-Kubra" and "Al-Qawa'id al-Usuliyyah". He says in "Al-Furu'": upon this disagreement is built the ruling on dealing with him, accepting his charity and his donation, accepting his invitation and the like; if one does not know that there is the unlawful in the wealth, the default is permissibility, and no prohibition arises from mere likelihood, even though leaving it is preferable out of doubt; and if the cause of prohibition strengthens to the point that his supposition applies, as with the vessels of the People of the Book and their food. End of quote.

The author said: the soundest course is abstention, which rests on the case where the principle and the apparent conflict; it has many parallels ("Al-Insaf" (8/322, 323)).

Imam Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if one buys from one whose wealth mixes the unlawful and the lawful, such as the oppressive ruler or the usurer: if one knows that the item sold comes from the lawful portion of his wealth, it is lawful; if one knows it is unlawful, it is unlawful; the buyer's claim is not accepted in the ruling, since the apparent is that what is in a man's hand is his property. If one does not know which of the two it is, one dislikes it, on account of the likelihood of prohibition, and the sale is not voided because of the possibility of the lawful, whether the unlawful be little or much; this is the doubt (shubhah), and the degree of the doubt follows the scarcity or abundance of the unlawful.

Ahmad said: "I do not like that he eat from it," because of what Nu'man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with them both) reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):

"The lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear; between the two are ambiguous matters that many people do not know. Whoever guards himself against the ambiguities preserves his religion and his honor; whoever falls into the ambiguities falls into the unlawful, like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary and is about to enter it: every king has a sanctuary, and the sanctuary of Allah is His prohibitions."

Agreed upon; this is the wording of Muslim's version. In Bukhari's version: "Whoever abstains from what is ambiguous for him keeps to what is clear; whoever ventures into what is doubtful among the sins is on the verge of committing what is manifest"

Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Leave what makes you doubt for what does not make you doubt." This is the school of al-Shafi'i ("Al-Mughni" (4/180)).

Imam Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) said: dealing with one whose wealth mixes the lawful and the unlawful: if the unlawful is the greater part of his wealth, Ahmad said one should avoid it, unless it is something slight or unidentifiable; our companions differ: is it disliked or forbidden, two views. If the lawful is the majority, dealing with him and eating from his wealth are permitted. Al-Harith reports from 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), regarding gifts from rulers: "There is no harm in them, so long as what you are given of the lawful exceeds what you are given of the unlawful. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions used to deal with the polytheists and the People of the Book, knowing that they do not abstain from every unlawful thing.

Where the matter is ambiguous, it is a doubt, and piety consists in leaving it. Sufyan said: "I do not like it; leaving it is dearer to me. Al-Zuhri and Makhul said: there is no harm in eating from what is not known to be unlawful specifically; if no specific unlawful thing is known in his wealth, but it is known that there is doubt in it, there is no harm in eating from it; Ahmad stated this explicitly in the narration of Hanbal.

Ishaq ibn Rahawayh takes the lenient position reported from Ibn Mas'ud, Salman and others, and what is reported from al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin permitting the taking of what is paid out from riba and gambling; Ibn Mansur reports it from him. Imam Ahmad said of wealth in which the lawful and the unlawful are mixed: if the wealth is abundant, one sets aside the amount of the unlawful and disposes of the rest; if the wealth is small, one avoids all of it; for when it is small, one cannot take any part of it while remaining safe from the unlawful, unlike when it is abundant. Some of our companions read this as scrupulousness rather than prohibition, and permit disposing of the small and the abundant alike after setting aside the amount of the unlawful: this is the view of the Hanafis and others; some of the pious adopted it, among them Bishr al-Hafi.

Some of the early scholars permitted eating from one known to have the unlawful in his wealth, so long as it is not known to come from it specifically: this is established from Makhul and al-Zuhri, and reported similarly from al-Fudayl ibn 'Iyad; traditions of the early generations on this are found in the "Kitab al-Adab" of Humayd ibn Zanjawayh, part of them in the "Jami'" of al-Khallal, and in the "Musannaf" works of 'Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shaybah.

Ibn Mas'ud was asked about the man whose neighbor eats riba openly, does not shrink from seizing foul wealth, and invites him to a meal. He said: "Accept his invitation; what pleases you is yours, and the sin is upon him. In a version: "I know nothing of him but the foul or the unlawful. Accept his invitation.

Imam Ahmad authenticated this from Ibn Mas'ud, but it is opposed by what is reported from him: "Sin turns hearts about. Salman is reported with a saying like Ibn Mas'ud's first statement, as are Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Hasan al-Basri, Muwarriq al-'Ijli, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, Ibn Sirin and others; these traditions are found in the "Kitab al-Adab" of Humayd ibn Zanjawayh, part of them in the "Jami'" of al-Khallal, and in the "Musannaf" works of 'Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Shaybah and others.

When a specific thing is known to be unlawful, taking it becomes unlawful, and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and others report consensus on this. It is reported from Ibn Sirin, regarding the man paid from riba: "no harm"; regarding the man paid from gambling: "no harm"; al-Khallal reports it with a sahih chain; al-Hasan holds the opposite: "these earnings have become corrupt; take from them what resembles the share of the destitute." Opposed to what is reported from Ibn Mas'ud and Salman: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) ate from a meal, was then informed that it came from the unlawful, and made himself vomit ("Jami' al-'Ulum wa-l-Hikam" p. 70, 71).

Imam al-Suyuti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: dealing with one whose wealth is mostly unlawful, when the specific portion is not known, is not unlawful according to the soundest view, but is disliked; likewise taking the gifts of the ruler when the unlawful dominates his wealth, as he said in "Sharh al-Muhadhdhab": the well-known position is dislike, not prohibition, contrary to al-Ghazali ("Al-Ashbah wa-l-Nazair" p. 107).

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: what is the ruling on the gifts of the governors of our time? He answered: some of the early generations accepted the governors' gifts, while others abstained out of piety; accepting them is permissible so long as nothing in them is confirmed as unlawful, such as an unjustly levied tax (maks) or the like: it may then not be accepted. Otherwise, acceptance is permissible. As for al-Ghazali's statement, "it is not permissible to deal with one whose wealth is mostly unlawful," it is weak, as al-Nawawi said in "Sharh al-Muhadhdhab"; the position relied upon is the permissibility of dealing with him and of eating from what is not confirmed unlawful of his wealth.

If a person eats something that later turns out to be the property of another, will he be called to account for it on the Day of Resurrection? Al-Baghawi said: if the appearance of his food was good, the eater will not be called to account; if it was otherwise, as with the governors, he will be called to account, having no excuse. One should therefore not attack the eating of the governors' wealth, even if it is permitted under the preceding condition; rather, scrupulousness (tanzih) is called for, for fear of not being entitled to it and of being held accountable for its consumption in the Hereafter ("Al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubra" (2/153)).

The Hanafis say: dealing with one whose wealth is mostly unlawful, when the portion taken is not confirmed as specifically unlawful, is not prohibited, on account of the possibility of the lawful and the absence of prohibition; but it is disliked, for fear of falling into the unlawful ("Ghamz 'Uyun al-Basa'ir" (1/193), "Bariqat al-Mahmudiyyah" (4/248), "Hashiyat al-Tahtawi" p. 24). Imam al-'Adawi of the Malikis (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the one whose greater wealth is unlawful is to be avoided; it is said: it is disliked. As for the one whose wealth is entirely unlawful: the shaykh Sulayman said in "Sharh al-Irshad" that eating from his wealth, accepting his donation and dealing with him are prohibited; that is, if one knows that what he fed or gave, he purchased specifically with the unlawful; but if he purchased it with a debt upon himself and then paid the unlawful into it, eating is not prohibited; if he inherited it or received it as a gift, it is permitted, so long as it is not the specific unlawful.

It is understood from the foregoing that if he is in doubt as to whether he bought it or was given it, it is not prohibited ("Hashiyat al-'Adawi on Kharidat al-Kharashi" (7/193)).

One Invited to Two Walimas

The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis state explicitly: if two people invite a man to two walimas, the one whose invitation came first is answered first; if neither preceded the other, he answers the nearer of the two by house, according to the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one view, and the Hanbalis in a narration, based on what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said:

"When two invitations come together, accept the one of the two whose door is nearer: the one whose door is nearer has the nearer neighborly claim; if one of the two has preceded, accept the one who preceded."

A weak hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (3756)

The Shafi'is, in a second view, say: if the two are equal in precedence, he answers the nearer by kinship; if they are equal in kinship, the nearer by house. Al-'Amrani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if the report is established, the nearer by house takes precedence, since the Prophet did not distinguish between the nearer by kinship and the farther; if they are equal in that, lots are drawn between them, neither having superiority over the other ("Al-Bayan" (9/485, 486), "Mawahib al-Jalil" (5/208), "Al-Mughni" (7/214)).

The Hanbalis, according to the school, say: if two or more people invite him, accepting all of them is obligatory upon him if he can combine them by extending the time; if he cannot combine them, he answers the first inviter: for acceptance of his invitation became obligatory at the moment of his invitation and does not fall away because of a later invitation, while acceptance of the second is not obligatory, being impossible alongside the acceptance of the first. If there is no precedence, because combining them is impossible, he answers the more religious of the two inviters, for he is the most honored by Allah; if they are equal in religion, the nearer by kinship, on account of the bond; if they are equal in kinship or its absence, the nearer by neighborhood, according to the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) words and because it falls under benevolence. Then lots are drawn if they are equal, the lot distinguishing the deserving one when the rights are equal ("Al-Mughni" (7/214), "Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat" (5/290), "Manar al-Sabil" (3/34, 35)).

Scattering Sweets (Nathr) and Picking Them Up

The jurists differ on the ruling on the scattering (nathr) of sweets and picking it up: is it disliked or permitted? The Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, in one narration, dislike it, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "forbade the seizing in crowds (nuhbah) and the seizing by stealth (muthlah)" (reported by Bukhari (2342)), and because it involves baseness.

The Malikis say: scattering almonds, sugar and the like at the walima is disliked when the host brings them for seizing in crowds (nuhbah) and no one takes any from his hand, so that all remains in his owner's possession, by virtue of the prohibition of the nuhbah. If the host brings them for the nuhbah or not, and some take from one another's hands, it is unlawful. As for bringing them in a vessel, without scattering: if he reserves them for certain notables to the exclusion of others, it is unlawful; if everyone eats from them at ease, it is permitted. What is scattered over them for them to eat in the ordinary manner, without mobbing: seizing it is unlawful; the host indeed intends equality in the ordinary manner of eating, and whoever takes more than he would eat with his companions in the ordinary manner has taken something unlawful and eaten suspicious gain (suht), beyond any doubt, and falls under the threat.

As for what is scattered to be seized, Malik disliked it; others permitted it, interpreting the prohibition as referring to the seizing of what one has not been given permission for ("Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari" (6/603), "Al-Taj wa-l-Iklil" (2/629), "Mawahib al-Jalil" (5/213), "Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil" (3/304), "Al-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat al-Dasuqi" (3/202), "Tahrir al-Mukhtar" (3/86)).

Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said of the scattering of sugar, almonds and walnuts: "were he to leave it off, it would be dearer to me; for it is taken by stealth and by seizure in crowds, and it does not appear to me clearly to be unlawful." Al-'Amrani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: in sum, scattering sugar, almonds, walnuts, raisins, dirhams, dinars and the like is not recommended, but disliked. It is reported that Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him), when he scattered something for the boys, prevented his own boys from picking it up and bought some for them instead; 'Ata', 'Ikrimah, Ibn Sirin, Ibn Abi Layla and Malik said the like. Abu Hanifah, al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu 'Ubayd and Ibn al-Mundhir say: it is not disliked.

The qadi Abu al-Qasim al-Saymari said: picking it up is disliked, but the scattering itself is recommended, and the practice of the early generations was established upon it; it is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he married 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) and they were content with one another, scattered sweets over them. But the first view is the well-known one; its proof is that the scattered items are seized by mobbing and jostling, and it may be taken by one whose taking the owner does not want: in it lies baseness and the loss of manly honor. What al-Saymari claims is not sound: there is no point in scattering if picking it up is disliked.

If one has scattered and a man picked some up, may the one who scattered it take it back? Two views, reported by al-Daraki: one, that he may take it back, no words of transfer of ownership having been uttered; the other, that he may not, and this is al-Mas'udi's choice in "Al-Ibanah", the scattering effecting transfer of ownership by custom. Al-Mas'udi says in "Al-Ibanah": if it fell into a man's lap, he has the stronger right to it; if another picked it up from his lap, or he stood up and it fell from his lap, does the one who picked it up own it? The sound view is that he does not own it.

The shaykh Abu Hamid reports that a Bedouin married a woman and scattered raisins over his head while reciting:

"When I saw that sugar had risen too dear that year, and I knew that, beyond all doubt, I was to marry, I scattered the raisins over my head for my companions, and said: eat the food of sweetness, O men of worth."

Abu al-'Abbas said: it is not disliked for travelers to mix their provisions and eat, even if some of them eat more than others, unlike scattering; for the scattered goods are taken by jostling and struggle, unlike provisions ("Al-Bayan" (9/493, 494)).

The Hanbalis say: scattering is disliked, at weddings and elsewhere, on account of the seizing in crowds it involves, "for he (may the prayer and peace be upon him) forbade the nuhbah and the muthlah"; picking it up is baseness and a loss of manly honor, and "Allah loves the loftiness of matters and detests their baseness"; in it are jostling and struggle, and it may be taken by one whom the owner would rather have excluded. Whatever comes into someone's lap, or whatever he takes of it, belongs to him, even without intending ownership: the owner indeed intended to grant it as property to whoever seizes it, and the one who took it acquired it and has it in his lap; he owns it, like the fish that leaps from the sea and falls into someone's lap; likewise the game that enters his house or tent and which he shuts in: no one may take it from him. If the one who took the scattered goods divides what he took among those present, there is no dislike for him or for them: the right is his, and he has permitted them.

Likewise if he places it before them and permits them to take it in a manner in which no mobbing occurs: it is permitted, the cause of dislike being absent ("Matalib Uli al-Nuha" (5/251), "Manar al-Sabil" (3/37)).

The Hanafis and the Hanbalis, in a narration chosen by Abu Bakr, which is also the choice of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and Ibn al-'Arabi among the Malikis, hold that scattering walnuts, almonds and sugar and picking them up is permitted without dislike, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "slaughtered five camels and said: let whoever wishes cut" (a sahih hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (1765), Ahmad (19098) and Ibn Khuzaymah in his "Sahih" (2917)); this falls under the same ruling as scattering: it is a form of permission.

Imam Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in one issue: "scattering is disliked, for it resembles seizing in crowds, and it may be taken by someone other than the one the owner of the scattered goods prefers."

The narrations from Ahmad differ on scattering and its collection. One narration reports that it is disliked, at weddings and elsewhere; it is reported from Abu Mas'ud al-Badri, 'Ikrimah, Ibn Sirin, 'Ata', 'Abdullah ibn Zayd al-Khatmi, Talhah and Zubayd al-Yami; Malik and al-Shafi'i said this. A second narration from Ahmad: it is not disliked; Abu Bakr chose it, and it is the view of al-Hasan, Qatadah, al-Nakha'i, Abu Hanifah, Abu 'Ubayd and Ibn al-Mundhir, by virtue of what 'Abdullah ibn Qurt reports: "five or six camels were brought near to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), jostling to see which of them he would begin with; the Messenger of Allah slaughtered them and said a word I did not hear; I asked the one who was near him, and he said: he said: 'let whoever wishes cut'" (reported by Abu Dawud). This falls under the same ruling as scattering.

It is also reported: "the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was invited to the walima of a man of the Ansar; food was brought in abundance (nuhb) and he took of it along with them. The narrator said: I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) pressing in among the people or the like. I said: O Messenger of Allah, did you not forbid us the nuhbah? He said: I forbade you the nuhbah of armies.

For it is a form of permission, like permitting food for two guests.

Against this: what is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "the nuhbah and the muthlah are not lawful," reported by Bukhari; in a version: "the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the nuhbah and the muthlah." In it are plunder, jostling and struggle; it may be taken by the one the owner of the scattered goods detests, out of greed and baseness of soul, while the one the owner loves is prevented from it, out of manly honor, self-respect and dignity. This is the more common case: men of honor protect themselves from jostling with the rabble over food or anything else; in it is baseness, and "Allah loves the loftiness of matters and detests their baseness."

As for the report of the camels, it may be that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew there was no seizing in crowds in that, the meat being abundant and the takers few; or that he did so while occupied with the rites, unable to distribute them. In sum, the disagreement concerns only the dislike; as for the permission, there is no disagreement over it, nor over the picking up: it is a form of permission over his property, like all other permissions.

In one issue: "if he divides it among those present, there is no harm in taking it. Thus it is reported from Abu 'Abdillah (Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him): one of his children married, and he divided walnuts among the boys. Dividing among those present what is scattered, such as almonds, sugar and the like: there is no disagreement that it is good and not disliked. Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reports: "the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) one day divided dates among his Companions, giving seven to each; he gave me seven, one of which was a dry, hard one, not yet ripe, that pleased me more than the others: it stuck to my palate" (reported by Bukhari).

Likewise if he places it before them and permits them to take it in a manner in which no mobbing occurs: that too is not disliked.

Al-Marwazi said: I asked Abu 'Abdillah about walnuts that are scattered: he disliked it and said: let them give them out, let them be divided among them. Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Bahr said: I heard Husn, the mother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal's child, say: when my son Hasan married, my master (Ahmad) said to me: Husn, do not scatter over them; she bought dates and walnuts and sent them to the schoolmaster. She said: I prepared an 'asidah and fed the poor, and he said: "well done, well done." Abu 'Abdillah divided walnuts among the boys, five to each.

Section: whoever has a portion of the scattered goods come into his lap, it belongs to him without dislike: it is permitted, he has seized it and become its owner, like the fish that leaps from the sea and falls into his lap; no one has the right to take it from him, as we have said ("Al-Mughni" (7/219, 220); see also "Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama'" (2/294, 295) and "Al-Istidhkar" (5/536)).

Kissing the Bread

The Hanafis and the Shafi'is state explicitly that kissing the bread is a permitted innovation. Imam al-Haskafi, the Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him), said: as for kissing the bread, the Shafi'is established that it is a permitted innovation; it is said: a good one; they say: it is stepping on the bread that is disliked, not kissing it, as Ibn Qasim mentions in his gloss on Ibn Hajar's "Sharh al-Minhaj", in the discussion of the walima; "our principles do not forbid it"; it has come: "do not cut the bread with the knife, and honor it, for Allah has honored it" ("Al-Durr al-Mukhtar" (6/384)).

The Malikis and the Hanbalis hold that kissing the bread is not legislated. The Malikis say: honoring the bread by kissing it or placing it above the head is not legislated ("Al-Durr al-Thamin wa-l-Mawrid al-Mu'in" p. 511). The Hanbalis say: kissing the bread is not legislated, according to the hadith of 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her):

"The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) entered the house, saw a piece of bread thrown down, took it, wiped it, then ate it and said: O 'Aishah, honor the noble (karim), for it has never turned away from a people without returning to them."

A weak hadith: reported by Ibn Majah (3353)

Imam Ibn Muflih (may Allah have mercy on him) said: this report indicates that it should not be kissed, for such is its place in our time ("Al-Adab al-Shar'iyyah" (3/221)). And disliked are: demeaning it, wiping the hands on it, and placing it under the bowl ("Manar al-Sabil" (3/37, 38)).