The determination (al-azeemah) is (a quality of) what was legislated of rules as a general legislation, and the servants are obliged by it. And the concession (al-rokhsah) is what was legislated of rules to lighten the determination because of an excuse, without obliging the servants to act upon it, with the remaining of the determination rule. As an example, the sawm is azeemah (determination) and the fitr (fast breaking) for the sick person is rokhsah (concession). Washing the organ in the wudhoo' is azeemah, and wiping the wounded or broken organ is rokhsah. Praying standing up is azeemah, and sitting down in the prayer in case of weakness is rokhsah, and as such. So the azeemah is what was generally legislated, it is not specific for some mukallafeen without the others, and it does not enable to choose between acting according to it or according to something else, but it obliges to act according to it solely. And the rokhsah is what was legislated for an unusual excuse, so its legislation is considered as long as the excuse exists, and it is not considered if the excuse vanishes, and it is especially for the mukallafeen that are characterized by this excuse. Accordingly, the rule that is an exception from a general text is not rokhsah, but it is azeemah, also the rule that is special for some situations is not rokhsah, but it is azeemah, because these are situations not excuses. An example for that is: the iddah of the women (period a widow should not remarry in it) that her husband died is four months and ten days, and the iddah of the pregnant women that her husband died is until she gives birth to her baby. This rule is an exception from the general rule so it is not a rokhsah. And also the sale, if its conditions are fulfilled and it is not forbidden; it is sahih (valid), and if the sale happened at al-ghobn al-faahish (excessive price), even if all its conditions are fulfilled and it is not forbidden; it is corrupted. Its buyer has the option about it (to return it), but it is not a rokhsah. Selling what is not received is baatil (invalid), and selling the animal that is not received is sahih (valid) and that is not a rokhsah. Accordingly the salam sale (forwarding the price and delaying the good), the araaya (palm trees given to the needy who could not wait until they are ripen so he is allowed to sell them by dates), the musaaqaat (a man allows a worker to water the trees and serve them for a known portion of the fruit), and the likes of the agreements are azeemah not rokhsah. And thus all the permissibles are determinations not concessions. And what is meant by obliging the servants to act according to it; is according to the rule, whether it is waajib or mandoub, mubaah, haraam or makrouh. Can you see that eating the maytah (dead not slaughtered meat) is haraam, but for the compelled one it is allowed, so it is a rokhsah, so what is considered is the action according to the rule, not the action itself. And as for the saying of the prophet (SAW) about the araaya He allowed the sale of the araaya as a rokhsah” narrated by maalik. What is meant is the linguistic meaning (of arkhasa) and that is He made it easy for you. And similar to that, all the agreements which Allah Ta’ala made easy for the people are determinations, because they are not exception from a rule that is originally forbidden for an excuse, so theire exception vanishes when the excuse vanishes, but these rules are legislated as facilitation for the servants, and their legislation is general and permanent. And there is difference in the case when someone could not stand up in the prayer, or he could with hardship so he prays sitting down, even though he violates one of the salaat’s pillars; it is not obligatory upon him to stand up, and that is a concession, and in the case when a man sells the estimated fruits of the palm trees to feed his family dates for the price of the estimated fruits of the palm trees, this is not a concession, because it is not an exception for an excuse, but it is a situation in which it is permitted to sell the ripe by the solid, even though it is an exception, but it was not legislated for an excuse to be considered as a concession, but it was legislated as a facilitation for the people, so it is of the facilitations of the shari'ah and not because of the excuses, so it is not a rokhsah. It is inevitable that the rokhsah is shown in a shari'ahi daleel to consider it as a shari'ahi concession. It is a rule Allah Ta’ala had legislated it for an excuse so the excuse is the cause for considering the rule as shari'ahi. However, the rokhsah is considered to be from the shari'ahi causes, and it is one of the circumstantial rules, and it is the legislators address related to the actions of the servants about the circumstance, and since it is a legislator’s address; it is inevitable to have a shari'ahi daleel for it. so the blindness, the limping and the illness are excuses for the sitting down (absence) from the jihaad, Allah Ta’ala is blame No :said there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame, nor on the ill one (if he joins not the war)…), 17 Surat Al-Fath, and the traveling is an excuse for the fast breaking in ramadhaan, Allah Ta’ala said: but if any one of you is ill, or on a travel, the prescribed period (should be made up) by days later...),185 Surat Al-Baqarah, and the forgetfulness, the mistake and the compulsion are excuses which lift up the sin of the involved person that falls into a forbidden. The messenger (SAW) said: verily Allah had put down the blame of my Ummah for the mistake, the forgetfulness, and that which they are compelled to do” narrated by Ibn Maajah, and the ignorance about what can be ignored by some people is an excuse, because Rasoul Allah (SAW) heard Mu’awiah Ibn Al-Hakam saying the tashmeet (saying may Allah bless you) to a person that sneezed while in the prayer, so after they finished the prayer, the Messenger (SAW) taught him that speaking in the prayer invalidates it, by saying to him as narrated by Muslim: “verily nothing of the people’s talk is allowed in this prayer, it is but glorifying, praising Allah, and reciting the Quran”, and He did not command him to repeat the prayer. So these are excuses that came in the Shari'ahi daleel so they are considered excuses, and thus whatever came in the adillah (evidences) as specific excuses for specific rules will be considered as excuses, and whatever does not come in the daleel has no value, and will not be considered as a shari'ahi excuse at all. These excuses are considered for them selves, not because of the illah (reason in them), that is because the shari'ahi daleel which showed that they are excuses did not set reasoning (ta’leel) for considering them as excuses, but left them without reasons, so we don’t make ilal (reasons) for them, because the shari'ah did not set reasons for them, and made every excuse of them an excuse for the rule which it came for it, not for other rules, so it is considered as a special excuse for the rule which it came for it, not a general excuse for every rule, therefore, the blindness is an excuse to leave the jihaad, not an excuse to leave the salaat. Moreover, these excuses: the illness, he limping, the traveling, the forgetfulness, the compulsion and the mistake, even though they are qualitys; they are a kind of quality which does not indicate that it can be used for setting reasons (ta’leel), and does not show an indication for reasoning, therefore, we don’t measure other excuses to it, and we don’t seek a cause to set a reason for it, i.e. a reason to consider it as a illah for applying the illah rule on it, therefore, we don’t say that traveling is a illah because of its hardship but the travel itself is the illah because Allah Ta’ala considered it as a illah not because of its hardship, i.e. it is an insufficient illah, therefore, the traveler is allowed to shorten the salaat for the distance of the shortening (qasr), even if he travels by plane, and does not shorten for less then the shortening distance even if he travels in the desert while it is very hot, because the hardship is not the excuse that allowed the shortening, but the excuse that made the roukhsa (concession) to shorten the salaat is the travel, for it is a travel regardless of the hardship, and thus are all the excuses because of which the roukhas (concessions) are issued by the shari'ahi text. This is with regard to the reality, that the roukhsa and the azeemah are from the shari'ah perspectives. As for acting according to the rokhsah or the azeemah (determination); verily acting according to either one of them is a mubaah, so one can act according to the rokhsah or according to the azeemah, because this is shown in the texts of the concessions. Allah Ta’ala said: to inclination no with ,hunger by forced is any if But transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful) 3 Surat Al Ma’idah, and He said: (…But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful) 173 Surat Al-Baqarah, so He Ta’ala showed the rokhsah by lifting up the guilt of the eating and this is the ibahah (permissibility), and forgave the sin of his action and it is the ibahah. He Ta’ala said: When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers may attack you: for the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies) 101 Surat Al-Nisaa’, and lifting up the blame means the ibahah. Allah Ta’ala said: ......) but if any one is ill, or on a travel, the prescribed period (should be made up) by days later...) 185 Surat Al-Baqarah, and this is the ibahah, so the evidences of the rokhas themselves give the ibahah (permissibility) to act according to the rokhsah not the wujoub (obligation), nor the nadb (preference). Also Muslim narrated on the authority of Hamzah Ibn Amrou that he said: I ,Allah Rasoul Oh find strength in myself for fasting while traveling, is it an offence I commit? Rasoul Allah (SAW) said: it is a rokhsah from Allah Ta’ala, whoever takes it, it is well done. And whoever likes to fast, there is no sin on him”, and on the authority of Abu Sa’ied that he said: َ ,” we traveled with Rasoul Allah (SAW) the faster would fast and the fast breaker would break the fast, and non of them blame the others, narrated by Muslim. These texts indicate explicitly that the rokhsah and the azeemah are mubaah (when the choice is given), so one is free to opt either one of them he wills.

It could be said that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: " Verily, Allah loves that His concessions are taken, as He loves that His determinations are taken”, narrated by Ibn Hibbaan, and this is a request, so it is a daleel that it is a mandoub. If the compelled one fears death; he must eat the dead meat, and it is forbidden for him to abstain from eating it. If the choked one could not find except the intoxicant; he must drink it to relief himself from the choke if he fears death, and it is forbidden that he abstain and die. If the fasting person becomes very fatigue to the extant of death; he must break his fast, and it is forbidden for him to remain fasting and die, and as such, which indicate that acting according to the rokhsah could be a fardh, a mandoub and could be a mubaah. The answer to that is: the talk (discussion) is about the rokhsah from the perspective that it is a concession; it is certainly a mubaah (permissible) because of the previous evidences. So the hukm of the concession with regard to its legislation is the mubaah. As for the :(SAW (Messenger the of saying Allah ,Verily" “...

loves that His concessions are taken…”, nothing in the hadeeth indicates the nadb (preference), but it indicates the ibaahah, because it clarifies that Allah Ta’ala loves that His rokhas (concessions) to be taken (practiced), and He loves that His azaa’im (determinations) to be taken, and non of the two request has a priority over the other, and this is in the text of the hadeeth: " " Verily, Allah loves that His concessions are taken, as He loves that His determinations are taken”, therefore there is no indication in the hadeeth that acting according to the rokhsah is a mandoub. As the issue of eating the dead (not slaughtered) meat; the modhttar (compelled one) does not mean the one which is ascertained of his death, but just for fearing the death; he is considered as a compelled one, but if death becomes ascertained if he doesn’t eat, then it becomes forbidden for him to refrain from eating, and becomes a must (waajib) upon him to eat, not because it is a rokhsah, but because eating becomes a waajib. That is because acting according to the azeemah, which is refraining from eating (in that situation) is a mubaah, but it definitely leads to the haraam which is the self perishing. So it becomes haraam to carry out the azeemah in that situation according to the shari'ahi :principle " the means to the forbidden is a forbidden” and carrying out the rokhsah becomes a waajib because of the emergency cause which is the death certainty, and this is not the rule of the rokhsah (as a concession), but one of the situations on which the principle:" the means to the forbidden is a forbidden” is applicable. This application is not specially for the rokhsah, but it is general for every mubaah, and like that is the drinking of the intoxicant for the choked person, and the fast breaking for the ascertained of death person and others. Accordingly, the rule of the rokhsah as it is and with regard to its legislation is the mubaah (permissible), but if refraining from it and carrying out the azeemah lead certainly to the haraam, then carrying out the mubaah becomes haraam.