To those who have questions about the Q&A: The Ramifications of the Coronavirus Here are the answers to your questions:
1- As for the difference between the epidemic and the plague, or between Coronavirus (COVID-19) and the plague; there is no difference in terms of it being infectious. The plague and Coronavirus are diseases have the potential of infecting, as created by Allah Al-Qawi and Al-Aziz, regardless of whether the disease is transmitted by bacteria or virus. So in terms of the possibility of infecting, it is present (in COVID-19), this is why the ruling does not differ, and this was the focus of the Question and Answer.
2- With regard to the question about the Question and Answer that the current Coronavirus disease is not being manufactured by humans, and the argument that this depended on Western reports, therefore we should not rely upon them: This is not an accurate matter, because the scientific aspects can be taken from any party if there is satisfaction that they are correct. And, therefore, there is nothing wrong with relying on Western reports about humans not manufacturing the contagious Coronavirus disease. Rather, the virus exists naturally, without being manufactured by humans, as mentioned in the Question and Answer. We view its natural existence argument is stronger than the argument that humans made it for their own goals … especially since the disease has spread in the countries accused of this, such as China and America … the Answer to the Question mentioned the following:
[Thus, a war of words broke out between America and China because of the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV2), and both countries accuse the other of being the direct factor in the spread of this disease, and although both systems applied in China and the United States are not excluded from being behind the spread of the virus, however, after research, it is likely that there is no concrete evidence that the United States nor China was the one that transmitted or manufactured the virus and then proceeded to transmit it to other countries].
This is detailed in the Answer to the Question, which is posted on the webpage and can be checked.
3- Friday prayers must be in the mosque and some jurists allow it to be in a public space, i.e. in a public place where the worshiper is not prevented from entering it. But in private places, (houses), then the more correct opinion is that the Friday prayer are not held there and are not valid. If the mosque or the public space is not accessible then it will be performed in the houses as Zuhur, with four Rak’at, and the state bears the sin for preventing the Friday prayer in the mosques or in the public space, because the texts explains this matter, and this is understood from Allah’s saying: يَا أيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نُودِيَ لِلصَّلَاةِ مِنْ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَذَرُوا الْبَيْعَ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ “O you who have believed, when [the adhan] is called for the prayer on the day of Jumu’a [Friday], then proceed to the remembrance of Allah and leave trade.” [Al-Jumu’a: 9].
The Muslim seeks to pray without being stopped فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَذَرُوا الْبَيْعَ “then proceed to the remembrance of Allah and leave trade.” [Al-Jumu’a: 9].
The pursuit of the prayer is obligatory because it is associated with leaving the permissible (Mubah)… i.e. prayer does not take place in private places, such as houses, where the prohibition is permitted … This is why it was stated in the Question and Answer that the closure of mosques by the rulers and the prevention of prayer in mosques is something that is not permissible and bears a great sin for these rulers. Accordingly, if the rulers prohibited performing Friday prayers in the mosque, and there was no place available for prayer except the houses, then it is prayed at home as four Rak’at of Zuhur, and the state that closes the mosques would bear a great sin as we mentioned in the Question and Answer.
4- As for the question: (Then, Friday and congregational prayer are canceled today due to the fear of the rulers’ oppression, as I understood, and Allah Knows Best) … This needs to be detailed… in our answer it states:
“And it is not obligatory on the one who is in fear, due to what was narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, that the Prophet ﷺ said: «مَنْ سَمِعَ النِّدَاءَ فَلَمْ يُجِبْهُ فَلَا صَلَاةَ لَهُ إلَّا مِنْ عُذْرٍ، قَالُوا: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ وَمَا الْعُذْرُ؟ قَالَ: خَوْفٌ أَوْ مَرَضٌ» “He who heard the call must answer it, there is no prayer for a man except with an excuse. They said: O Messenger of Allah, what is the excuse? He said: Fear or disease.” It was extracted by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra….Fear as stated in Al Mughni by Ibn Qudama 1/451: [(881) chapter: and the one who leaves it for fear is excused, due to the Prophet’s saying: «الْعُذْرُ خَوْفٌ أَوْ مَرَضٌ» “the excuse is fear or illness”. Fear is of three types, for the soul, wealth or family. The first, is to “fear for one’s soul from a ruler or an enemy and the like which can harm the soul…” Also it is stated in Al Muhazab in Fiqh of Imam Ash-Shafi’i by Ash-Sherazi: “…including fearing harm against his soul and wealth, or a harsh illness that affects him “so he cannot attend”, and the evidence for this, is what was narrated from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, that the Prophet ﷺ said: «مَنْ سَمِعَ النِّدَاءَ فَلَمْ يُجِبْهُ فَلَا صَلَاةَ لَهُ إلَّا مِنْ عُذْرٍ، قَالُوا: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ وَمَا الْعُذْرُ؟ قَالَ: خَوْفٌ أَوْ مَرَضٌ» “He who heard the call must answer it, there is no prayer for a man except with an excuse. They said: O Messenger of Allah, what is the excuse? He said: Fear or disease.”
That is, a Muslim is excused if he was unjustly pursued in his person by an unjust authority. If he is certain or had least amount of doubt that the ruler’s agents in the mosque are waiting for him, to come to arrest him and cause harm to him, then he is excused from performing Friday prayers in this mosque, and he has to search for a way to pray Friday in another one, if it is not possible after exerting effort, then he can pray in a private place as Zuhur with four Rak’at … If the questioner has understood from our answer this, then it is correct, and Allah (swt) Knows Best and He is Most Wise.
5- The Hadith, «لَا عَدْوَى…» “There is no infection …” [Bukhari]
“There are those who explain it as denying the infection … but it is more likely that it is khabar (news) in the meaning of a request. If the Muslim patient carries an infectious disease, i.e. that it has a potential to infect (others), as created by Allah (swt), in this case has the excuse not to attend the Friday and congregational prayers for fear that other worshipers may contract the disease… It is also one of the excuses as stated in the previous Hadith, «الْعُذْرُ خَوْفٌ أَوْ مَرَضٌ» “the excuse is fear or illness”.
6- The Hadith, «إِذَا مَرِضَ الْعَبْدُ أَوْ سَافَرَ كُتِبَ لَهُ مِثْلُ مَا كَانَ يَعْمَلُ مُقِيماً صَحِيحاً» “When a slave falls ill or travels, then he will get reward similar to that he gets for good deeds practiced at home when in good health.” [Bukhari]
This is concerning the traveler or the ill, i.e. the one with an excuse not to attend congregational and Friday prayers, he will pray according to what the Shariah stipulated to him, and he will be rewarded the same as the resident or the person who is not ill. And therefore, it does not apply here to the one with good health or the resident who does not go to the Friday prayer without an excuse.
7- As for objecting to our saying that the minimum number (of people) for the Friday prayer is three, and that Al-Shafi’i said its forty … this is another discussion, and we can add to it that the Maalikis said it should be twelve people. There is no contradiction here, rather the issue is related to not closing the mosques in which the Muslims pray Friday and the congregational prayer, with the Shariah given number of people, knowing that there is a true juristic opinion that three people can pray Friday, as mentioned in the Question and Answer.
8- As for the issue of taking the means (al-Asbab), that is correct, but without violating the Shariah. Taking the means here would be that the patient does not go to the Friday prayer and the healthy people do … We have mentioned in the Question and Answer enough (information) to indicate that mosques must not be locked so that the healthy people can pray, and that measures should be taken to prevent the sick with a contagious disease from attending the prayer, which is clear. It cannot be said that healthy people may be sick with Coronavirus, but the symptoms are not visible, and therefore all are prevented from the mosques, that is, all the inhabitants of the planet are prevented from the mosques! These are words that do not make up an argument not even with least amount of doubt! Rather, the patient who definitely has a contagious disease is prevented, and those who there are doubts about are also prevented, but the rest go and pray.
9- As for the questioner who said that the Coronavirus does not have a backbone, he means like the human being, yes he is correct … but it seems that the links of the protrusions in this creature made the English source call it “backbone” and its medical meaning in Arabic “the backbone” was used due to the similarities with the interconnectedness of the vertebrae in the human spine … We have kept it like this … and we did not think that it would be a subject of questioning!
10 – With regard to washing the dead … the Shariah ruling is as follows:
a. The more correct opinion (by outweighing evidences) is that the obligation of washing the dead Muslim is an obligation of sufficiency (fard kifayah), and the evidence for this is:
The Prophet ﷺ said about the man in Ihram, who was thrown by his she-camel: «اغْسِلُوهُ بِمَاءٍ وَسِدْرٍ وَكَفِّنُوهُ فِي ثَوْبَيْهِ» “Wash him with water and Sidr (lotus leaves) and shroud him in his two garments (that he was wearing for Ihram).” [Bukhari narrated it on the authority of Ibn Abbas].
And the Prophet ﷺ said to those who washed his daughter: «اغْسِلْنَهَا وِتْراً ثَلَاثاً أَوْ خَمْساً» “Wash her an odd number of times, three or five times” [Narrated by Muslim on the authority of Umm Atiyah].
– It is clear from the two Hadiths that the one who carried out the washing are a number of Muslims who were sufficient (met the Kifayah), and that the Prophet ﷺ was satisfied with that. The Prophet ﷺ persisted on this ruling for every dead Muslim who died during his lifetime, and he ﷺ only excluded the martyr in the battle from being washing, like the martyrs of Badr and Uhud, meaning that washing the deceased is a fard of Kifayah (obligation by sufficiency).
b. This was followed by many jurists:
In Al-Mabsoot of Surkhasai, it states: “I know that washing the dead is an obligation, which is the right of a Muslim over a Muslim, he ﷺ said: «لِلْمُسْلِمِ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِ سِتَّةُ حُقُوقٍ» “for a Muslim over a Muslim are six rights” and it included: wash him after his death, but if it was carried out by some Muslims, it is no longer a duty on the rest because what was intended was achieved.”
– Imam Al-Shafi’i said in “Al-Umm”: “It is the duty of the people to wash the dead, and pray for him and bury him. This cannot be done by all the people, and if some of them carry this out, who are sufficient, then it is accepted, Allah (swt) willing.”
And in “Al-Sharh Al-Kabeer” by Ibn Qudamah: [Chapter of Washing the Dead the Issue of Washing the dead, burial and shrouding him, and praying upon him is a fard of sufficiency] because the Prophet ﷺ said about the man who was thrown down by his she-camel:«اغْسِلُوهُ بِمَاءٍ وَسِدْرٍ وَكَفِّنُوهُ فِي ثَوْبَيْهِ» “Wash him with water and Sidr (lotus leaves) and shroud him in his two garments (that he was wearing for Ihram).” [Agreed upon]
c. If the deceased cannot be washed for some reason, such as lack of water or the deceased’s body was burnt and if he were to be washed with water, the body would disintegrate … or if he died of an infectious disease such as leprosy, plague, Coronavirus, and other diseases, and if he is washed, the disease may be transmitted to the person who washes him… we do not want to adopt in that, and the Muslim should imitates the most correct juristic opinion that reassures him, and I will cite you some Shariah opinions of the jurists:
– The Hanafis see that if it is not possible to wash the body with water, due to the lack of water, then tayamum with dust should be carried out on the dead, as stated in “Al-Inayah” (16/261). He said: “If he (deceased) cannot be washed, because lack of what he can be washed with, then tayamum is performed with dust.” If it is impossible to wash the body because he cannot be touched, water it poured on it, as he said in “Maraqi Al-Falah” (224): (And the swollen one that cannot be touched, water is poured on him).
– And the Malikis believe that whoever cannot be washed with water because of its absence, tayamum should be performed on him … if the failure to wash him was due to sores in the body, burns, scabies, or smallpox; and if he is washed in water that leads to its removal and disintegration, then the water is poured over him to the extent that protects the body from disintegration and dislocation. If it is not possible to pour water on him, then tayamum is performed… as it was stated in “Al-Sharh Al-Kabeer” of Sheikh Ahmed Al-Dardir on “Mukhtasar Khalil”.
As for the Shafi’is, they see that if the dead cannot be washed for any reason, such as lack of water or fearing the disintegration of a burnt body, then the dead person is not washed, rather tayamum is performed on him. Rather, they stipulated that if there is fear that the one who is washing will be harmed by the dead, then it is obligatory to do tayamum. Al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on his soul) said in Al-Majmou’: “If you cannot wash the dead for lack of water or he was burned, and if he was washed then the body will disintegrate, then he is not washed and tayamum is performed on him, this tayamum is an obligation because it is cleansing and it is not about removing impurity (najasa). So in the inability of using water then tayamum is done as the ghusl of janaabah. If he was stung, and if he is washed the body will disintegrate, or there is fear that the washer will be harmed, tayamum is performed on the dead…”
As for the Hanbalis, they have two narrations, the first: “When the deceased cannot be washed with rubbing (of the body) for a reason, water is poured on him without rubbing, otherwise tayamum is performed …”
In the other narration: (Whoever cannot be washed then tayamum is not performed on him and it is prayed upon him without washing or doing tayamum, based on the purpose of washing is cleaning, and it is not achieved by doing tayamum).
Sheikh Muhammad bin Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shanqeeti said in “Sharh Umdat Al-Fiqh”: (He who has contagious disease that harms, this is with regard to the harm to the dead, and it may harm the living person who is washing the dead, like if the dead had an infectious disease, by extrapolation and the testimony of the people of experience, that if someone will wash him he will be harmed, therefore tayamum is carried out…).
As you can see, here are two opinions: If the dead cannot be washed, tayamum will be performed on him and he will be prayed upon and buried… or if the dead cannot be washed, then tayamum is not performed on him, he is prayed upon and buried. As we said at the beginning of the answer, a Muslim should imitate the opinion that he is reassured of its correctness.
11- Regarding the point that we do not adopt in belief and acts of worship: this is true except in the basic doctrine and worship related to the unity of the Ummah such as fasting and Eid when citing the Crescent in any country, as well as in this issue with regards to the closure of mosques, what is obligatory is that it must remain open at the required times as indicated in the Question and Answer.
18 Sha’ban 1441 AH