عموم البلوى

This is actually not true, statements like this may have a good intention behind them, but they over simplify our tradition.

In certain situations, there are accepted principles can be applied to make that which is haram... not haram. https://twitter.com/MuradMN_/status/1113482305149054977

A modern example of umum al balwa would be avoiding the sound of music (the type that’s impermissible) in this country, for people that go out shopping, or to eat, etc.

This example is something which is a very ‘widespread tribulation’ (the literal translation of عموم البلوى)

This would also be impossible for you to avoid, and therefore you can’t put a fatwa of prohibition against it... lest you make everyone a sinner bc “what is haram will always be haram”

Two other modern day examples; (which can be disputed amongst us hanafis)...

some mufti’s have concluded that wearing perfumes with alcohol in them are fine because of this principle, so many people do it you can’t put a blanket ban on it.

Another example is watching football. (Bc hanafi fiqh the Awrah of a man is navel to knee, Maliki school differs).

However of both them don’t exactly fall under umūm al balwa, (so a strict mufti would reject this).

Why? Bc you can avoid watching football, and you can avoid wearing those sorts of perfumes. There’s no بلاء (singular and less emphasised form of بلوى which means tribulation).

A classical example is:
A fly after having sat on waste, coming to sit on you.

The fuqaha of the salaf then concluded that the amount considered for najasah ghaleeza (major filth) would therefore be the size of (now modernly we say:) a 50p piece coin.

as that is something impossible to avoid. So on the basis of umūm al balwā, that was decided. There are many other cases similar to this historically & today.

There is actually a principle in Islamic law (the real Islamic law of the four schools) to remove hardship in general...

Allah would not place a burden on you, but He would purify you & would perfect His grace upon you, that you may give thanks.
(Al Ma’idah 5:6).

He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. (Al Hajj 22:78).

Two (of many clear) verses of Quran...

“When the Prophet ﷺ was to make a choice between two matters he chose the easier one as long as it was not a sin.”

“Give glad tidings (to the people); do not create (in their minds) aversion (towards religion) show them leniency & do not be hard upon them.”
(Both In Bukhari)

We also have Raf` Al-Haraj. Six situations by the Laws principle of ease & removal of hardship;

illness.
travel.
forgetfulness.
being under coercion/forced.
ignorance and general non preventable problems.

In these situations when a concession is given, it’s called a rukhsa.

Rukhsa means permit/license. The opposite of Rukhsa is called Azima (acting on the original ruling/stricter position, removing yourself from ikhtliaf).

Generally you’re taught in fiqh there’s four basic levels of Rukhsa as not all situations are the same. They are as follows..

1. Where the choice to take Rukhsa is upon you. The most common example is breaking the fast when you’re travelling (the distance that makes you a traveller 57.5 miles outside your city in hanafi fiqh)

2. When it’s preferred & better to take Rukhsa. An example is shortening the prayers (this does NOT mean combining... for us hanafis) when you’re travelling. There’s many Hadith on this.

3. When Azima is recommended.
An example is in Hanafi fiqh, touching the private parts wouldn’t break the whudu, but in the other schools (esp Shafi even w/out desire it does).
So to do whudu again in this case as a hanafi is mustahabb/recommended, even though it doesn’t break.

4. When you Must take Rukhsa.

One of the 5 higher objectives of sharia is hifz ul nafs. Protection of life.

Pork/Alcohol is explicitly haram through clear texts of Quran, however if you’re dying of hunger & thirst & there’s NO other option, you must eat/drink it to survive.

There’s many other examples and clear evidence for all of these principles, but this should suffice for now.

Once a person understands all of this, then you realise haram isn’t always haram, that which is CLEARLY Haram can become permissible, based on solid principles.

Then you have the fact that there’s so many things mukhtallaf fee (validly disputed) in the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

People will accuse others of committing haram, when the other person follows opinions clearly in the four schools that make the act permissible.

https://twitter.com/s9_a4/status/998847041647398913?s=21

This is an old thread where I mentioned how Ibn hajr al haythami, and many other great scholars clearly understood this.

(Musawwiba In usul ftw)

And people shouldn’t get this thing of “ease” twisted either.

Ease is having access to an orthodox Sunni scholar who knows how to use the system for you, it’s not picking & choosing based on your nafs/ego.

Go to the real ulema when you have a situation, not google or a jahil.