Islamset - Opinions of Modern Scholars

Sheikh Hassanian Makhluf ruled that a verdict on smoking was open to interpretation (ijtihad) and that Muslim scholars had conflicting views on the ruling. He went on to say: "In the book Raddul muhtar we make it clear that smoking is permissible and that it has been judged as such by reliable imams of the four schools of thought, an account of which is given by Al-Ajhuri of the Maliki School and Al-Nabulsi of the Hanafi School in his treatise on the basis that there is no legal evidence to justify a verdict of prohibition or reprehensibility and that no evidence has been produced to prove it is either intoxicating or harmful to smokers in general. As a rule all things are permissible (unless stated otherwise)".

Having substantiated his opinion by quotations from jurists' books, Sheikh Makhluf said: "It follows that trading in it (tobacco) is in all probability permissible and that profits accruing therefrom are permissible unless fresh evidence should prove it (smoking) to be impermissible or strongly reprehensible on account of being profoundly detrimental to life or wealth or both".

A ruling of haram came from Dr. Muhammad al-Tayyeb al-Najjar, a member of the Islamic Research Academy, who based his opinion on a Quranic verse which declares all bad and impure things to be impermissible: And (He will) prohibit them from all that is foul (7:157) as well as on the consensus of medical opinion which holds smoking to be harmful to health. Anything that could damage the body and inflict harm on health is considered haram since God enjoins: And do not with your own hands cast yourselves into destruction (2:159).

God forbids extravagance: Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the Devil (17:27). Smoking leaves smokers open to bouts of stupor, languor and fainting. As far as most smokers are concerned these symptoms are also accompanied by a momentary loss of the conscious mind. For this reason smoking is ruled to be haram to them.

Sheikh Dr Zakaria al-Birry, a member of the Islamic Research Academy, ruled that smoking is haram. He based his opinion on the strong evidence against smoking as established by contemporary medical research, leading many governments to pass laws prohibiting smoking in many places and gatherings. He went on to say that on the whole, ruling on smoking ranged between absolute prohibition and strong reprehensibility.

The Azhar Fatwa (religious ruling) Committee ruled that smoking was a habit which Islamic laws rejected and considered forbidden. The text of the fatwa published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-gumhuriya on March 22, 1979.

A careful evaluation of the foregoing rich stock of learned opinion reveals that those who thought that smoking and trading in it was not permissible (forbidden) gave the right explanation of the verdict. Some of them were able to derive evidence for its being forbidden, namely because of its adverse effects on the soul, mind and wealth, all of which the sharia enjoined people to protect. They ruled that proper punishment should be inflicted by the ruler, at his discretion, upon those who commit crimes against themselves, their minds and wealth. Among other things, they based their ruling that smoking was haram on arguments such as that it was neither a nutrient nor a curative; that it was a devitalizer; that it involved imitation of the infidels and Satan; that it was an innovation; that it was associated with offensive smell; that it presented profligates with the chance to meet and indulge in merry-making; that it enters into the body; that it is produced by fire; or that its impermissibility was established by the consensus opinion of imams and jurists. Nevertheless, none of this is, in fact, good enough to prove that smoking is haram. In the opinion of the Hanafi school something that is haram is that which has been proved as such by unequivocal and clear-cut evidence. In the opinion of Ahmed ibn Hanbal it is that the impermissibly of which is fully ascertained. What the jurists mentioned did not contain the type of evidence required as a prerequisite condition of impermissibility.

The evidence cited by those who ruled smoking to be permissible and those who took it to be just reprehensible is beside the point. Their argument that basically all things are permissible is controversial, for the opposite is considered to be true by others. The rule of general permissibility would have been applicable had there been no conclusive evidence making it incumbent on man to take good care of soul, mind and wealth and to strive to keep them out of harm's way. In the presence of the foregoing conclusive evidence it becomes pointless to invoke the rule of general permissibility or to claim that impermissibility is not substantiated by the necessary evidence.

Meanwhile, the validity of the rule that basically useful things are permissible whereas harmful things are impermissible is duly acknowledged. But this rule is proof against and not for the advocates of permissibility, as the hazards involved in smoking tobacco and taking narcotic drugs or trading in them have been established beyond any shadow of doubt.

Financially speaking, Egypt, for example, imports 75000 tones each year of tobacco from the United States of America.