Dismissing an argument that follows the form

- X leads to haram-Y
- what leads to the haram is haram
- therefor X is haram

for no reason other than “X doesn’t always lead to Y” is another example of #fauxfiqh #fiqhtion.

The argument is a clear-cut application of blocking-the-means [*sadd al-dhari’a*]. In this sort of argument, the faqih has to look at how likely it is that X leads to haram-Y.

- If it is
*certainly* the case that X leads to haram-Y, then X becomes blocked. - If it is
*usually* the case that X leads to haram-Y, then X becomes blocked. - If it is
*frequently* the case that X leads to haram-Y, then X becomes frequently blocked. - If it is
*rarely* the case that X leads to haram-Y, then X remains as it was.

The objection removes the first category. The next two categories leave ample room for X being blocked.

Really, the only simple way to object is to show that it is rarely the case that X leads to haram-Y.

* * *

So, no: all the *mufassir*s who quote Shauki’s

نَظْرَةٌ فابتسَامَةٌ فسَلاَمٌ … فكَلامٌ فموعِدٌ فَلِقَاءٌ

aren’t doing it wrong.

### Like this:

Like Loading...