The concept of tark (abandonment)

The concept of tark (abandonment)

🕌 The Principle of Abandonment in the Hanbali Madhhab

“الترك لا يدل على التحريم عند الحنابلة”

“The mere abandonment of an act does not indicate its prohibition according to the Hanbalis.”

🌿 Introduction

Among the subtle yet essential principles of usul al-fiqh (legal theory) is how jurists interpret the Prophet’s ﷺ abandonment of an act — whether such non-performance (tark) serves as evidence of prohibition (tahrīm), dislike (karāhah), or neutrality (ibāḥah).

Within the Hanbali madhhab, a balanced and precise stance is maintained:

> “The mere abandonment of an act by the Prophet ﷺ, or by the early generations, does not in itself indicate that the act is harām or even makrūh.”

This principle is crucial to understanding the methodological caution of Hanbali scholars, who differentiate between leaving something and prohibiting something.

1. The Statement of Imām al-Buhūtī and Ibn Qudāmah

Imām Manṣūr al-Buhūtī (d.1051 AH) said in Kashshāf al-Qināʿ,

and Muwaffaq al-Dīn Ibn Qudāmah (d.620 AH) stated in al-Mughnī:

> “وترك النبي ﷺ لا يدل على الكراهة، فإنه قد يترك المباح.”

“The Prophet ﷺ abandoning a matter is not proof that it is disliked, for he sometimes abandoned matters that were permitted.”

This establishes a clear rule:

The tark (abandonment) of the Prophet ﷺ does not, by itself, make an action disliked (makrūh).

The Prophet ﷺ may abandon an act for reasons other than prohibition — such as preferring a better deed, lack of need, or as part of divine wisdom specific to his circumstances.

Hence, not doing something does not automatically mean it is forbidden or discouraged.

2. The Statement of Imām Ibn Mufliḥ al-Maqdisī

Imām Shams al-Dīn Ibn Mufliḥ (d.763 AH) clarified the matter further in an-Nukat:

> “عدم الفعل لا يدل على الكراهة، وترك المستحب لمستحب أولى منه لا يدل على أن المتروك ليس بمستحب، إنما غايته أن يدل على أن يُفعل هذا اقتداء بالنبي ﷺ.”

“The non-commission of an act is not evidence that the act is disliked. Likewise, abandoning one recommended act for another that is more preferred does not indicate that the one left is not recommended. At most, it shows that doing this (the chosen act) is in following the Prophet ﷺ.”

This statement refines the principle beautifully:

The Prophet ﷺ may abandon a recommended deed (mustahabb) to perform another deed that is even more recommended (afḍal).

His tark (leaving) therefore does not nullify the virtue of the abandoned deed.

At most, it shows priority, not prohibition.

 3. The Balance of the Hanbali Approach

From these texts, the Hanbali position is both methodological and moderate:

Case Hanbali View Explanation

Prophet ﷺ abandoned an act Not proof of prohibition. He may leave something permissible for various reasons

Prophet ﷺ left one mustahabb for another Not proof that the first is not mustahabb Indicates preference and hierarchy, not negation.

No action reported from the Prophet ﷺ Not automatically disliked. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Thus, Hanbali scholars avoid over-interpreting prophetic silence or omission as legislative prohibition.

4. The Theological and Ethical Wisdom

This principle guards the believer from excess in religion (ghuluw) and unwarranted restriction (tashdīd).

It reminds us that:

The Sunnah is to follow both the Prophet’s actions and his intentions, not to derive prohibition from every act he did not do.

Islam is not built on negation or assumption, but on explicit evidence and sound understanding.

As Imām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) stated elsewhere:

> “ترك النبي ﷺ للشيء لا يدل على تحريمه إلا إذا وُجد سبب يقتضي الفعل ولم يفعل مع عدم المانع.”

“The Prophet ﷺ leaving something is not evidence of its prohibition unless there was a reason for doing it and he did not do it without any impediment.”

(Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 21/65)

Conclusion

In summary, the Hanbali madhhab maintains:

> “Al-tark la yadullu ʿala al-taḥrīm.”

“Mere abandonment is not proof of prohibition.”

This elegant principle safeguards the Ummah from unfounded strictness and reminds us to ground our rulings in dalīl (evidence), not assumption.

It is a testament to the intellectual precision and spiritual depth of the Hanbali jurists, who sought always to align law with wisdom, balance, and the Sunnah.

References:

Kashshāf al-Qināʿ – al-Buhūtī (d.1051 AH)

al-Mughnī – Ibn Qudāmah (d.620 AH)

an-Nukat – Ibn Mufliḥ al-Maqdisī (d.763 AH)

Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā – Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728 AH)

#HanbaliFiqh #UsulAlFiqh #IbnQudamah #IbnMuflih #IslamicLaw #PropheticMethodology #Sunnah