Dought & clear, - The difference between qasd (objectives) and niyyah (intention) and the importance of intention in fiqh.

What is the difference between qasd (objectives) and niyyah (intention)? What is the importance of objectives in fiqh?.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Objective (qasd) in the terminology of the fuqaha’ means the resolve to do something.Mu’jam al-Mustalahaat wa’l-Alfaaz al-Fiqhiyyah(3/96).
Niyyah, as al-Quraafi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, means: The intention in a person’s heart of what he wants to do.Al-Dhakheerah(1/20).
Al-Nawawi defined it as: Resolve in the heart to do an obligatory or other action.al-Majmoo’(1/310).
From the definition given by al-Quraafi it is clear that niyyah and qasd are close in meaning. Hence niyyah is defined as being qasd, but Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) was of the view that there is some difference between them. He said: Niyyah is exactly qasd but there are two differences between it and qasd:
1 – Qasd may be connected to the action of the doer himself or the action of others, whereas niyyah is connected only to his own actions. It cannot be imagined that a man would intend the deed of another, but it may be imagined that he would want it.
2 – Qasd can only refer to an action that the person is able to do and wants to do, whereas niyyah may refer to a person intending to do what he is able to do and what he is unable to do. Hence in the hadeeth of Abu Kabshah al-Anmaari, which was narrated by Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi and others, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are four types of people in this world: a man to whom Allaah gives wealth and knowledge, so he fears his Lord with regard to the way in which he disposes of his wealth, and he uses it to uphold ties of kinship and he realizes that Allaah has rights over it. This man occupies the highest status. And a man to whom Allaah has given knowledge but did not give him wealth, so he says, ‘If I had wealth I would have done the same as So and so is doing.’ So he will be rewarded according to his intention [niyyah] and the reward of both of them is the same. And a person to whom Allaah has given wealth but not knowledge. That is the worst status before Allaah. Then he said: A person to whom Allaah has given neither wealth nor knowledge, and he says: ‘If I had money I would have done what So and so is doing’. So he will be judged according to his intention [niyyah], and the burden (of sin) of both of them will be the same.” So niyyah has to do with that which is possible and that which is not possible, unlike qasd (objectives) and iraadah (will), which have nothing to do with that which is not possible, whether it is one’s actions or the actions of another.
End quote fromBadaa’i’ al-Fawaa’id(3/190). See alsoal-Qawaa’id al-Kulliyyah wa’l-Dawaabit al-Fiqhiyyahby Dr. Muhammad ‘Uthmaan Shabeer, p. 93, 94.
Secondly:
Objectives are very important in fiqh. It is sufficient for you to know that one of the most important principles is that matters are judged by their aims and objectives, which is based on the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Actions are but by intention and each person will have but that which he intended.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari (1) and Muslim (1907).
Al-Suyooti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: You should know that there are plenty of reports from the imams which speak of the great importance of the hadeeth about intention (niyyah). Abu ‘Ubaydah said: There is nothing in the reports of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that is more comprehensive, rich in meaning or more useful than this. Imam al-Shaafa’i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Mahdi, Ibn al-Madeeni, Abu Dawood, al-Daaraqutni and others were agreed that it is one-third of knowledge, and some of them said that it is one-quarter thereof. Al-Bayhaqi based its being one-third of knowledge on the fact that a person earns reward by the actions of his heart, tongue and physical faculties, so intention (niyyah) is one of these three categories and the most important of them, because it may be an independent act of worship, and the others need it. … al-Shaafa’i said: It may be entered through seventy doors. End quote fromal-Ashbaah wa’l-Nazaa’irp. 9.
This points to the importance of knowing aims and objectives, and giving them their due weight.
And Allaah knows best.

Dought & clear, - Should he give water to a thirsty man when he fearsthat he himself maybecome thirsty in the desert?.

If a person is walking in the desert and he has some water, but he fears that he may become thirsty later on, and there is someone who is thirsty now, does he have to give him water or not?
Praise be to Allaah.
Ibn Hajar al-Haythami was asked this question and he replied:
Two views were mentioned inal-Majmoo’, in (the chapter called)al-Muqaddam, and I do not know of anyone who stated that one of them was more correct than the other. The one which appears to be more correct is that he should give water to the one who is thirsty at that time, if there is the fear that he will die of thirst, because his death is certain, unlike the one who has the water, who has the chance of finding more water later on. But if he is in an arid land where he despairs of finding water and he thinks it most likely that death is inevitable if he gives away the water that he has with him, then the matter is subject to further discussion, and it is more likely that giving the water in this case is not obligatory. The same applies if the thirsty person fears that he may lose a limb or become sick etc. because of his thirst, and the one who has the water fears that he may die later on, then it is also more likely to be correct that he does not have to give away the water.
Al-Fataawa al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubra, 1/69.

Dought & clear, - Rulings on seizing thingswrongfully.

What is the ruling on taking another person’s property wrongfully (ghasb)?
Praise be to Allaah.
Ghasb in Arabic means to seize something wrongfully. In Fiqh terminology, it means taking the property of others wrongfully, by force.
Ghasb is haraam according to the consensus of the Muslims, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And eat up not one another’s property unjustly (in any illegal way, e.g. stealing, robbing, deceiving”
[al-Baqarah 2:188]
Ghasb is one of the worst kinds of eating up another person’s property unjustly, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Your blood, your property and your honour are sacred to you.” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The property of a Muslim is not permissible unless he gives his consent.”
The property that is seized by force may be real estate or it may be moveable goods, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever seizes a handspan of land unlawfully, will surround him to the depth of seven earths.”
The one who has seized anything unlawfully must repent to Allaah and return the seized property to its owner and ask him for forgiveness. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever has done any wrong to his brother, let him seek his forgiveness today, before there will be no dinar and no dirham [i.e., the Day of Resurrection], when if he has any hasanaat (good deeds), some of his hasanaat will be taken and given to the one who was wronged, and if he does not have any hasanaat, some of the sayi’aat (bad deeds) of the one who was wronged will be taken and thrown onto him, and he will be thrown into Hell,” or as he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said it. If the seized property is still there, it should be returned as it is, and if it is not there, then he must replace it.
Imaam al-Muwaffaq said: “The scholars agreed that it is obligatory to return the seized property if it is still in its original condition and has not changed.”
Similarly, he is obliged to return the seized property along with any increase, whether it is connected to it or separate, because that is the growth of the seized property, so it also belongs to the original owner.
If the one who seized the property has built anything or planted crops on the seized land, he has to remove the buildings or crops if the owner asks him to, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “The sweat of the evildoer counts for nothing.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi and others; classed as hasan). If that has caused any damage to the land, he is to be penalized for that damage. He also has to erase any traces of building or planting that remain, so that the land may be given back to its owner in good condition.
He also has to pay rent covering the period from the time when he seized the land to the time when he gave it back, - i.e., the rent for a similar piece of land – because he unlawfully prevented its owner from benefiting from it during this time.
If he seized something and kept it until the price dropped, he has to make it up to the proper price, according to the correct opinion.
If he mixed the seized property with something else that can be told apart from it – like mixing wheat with barley – the one who seized it has separate it and return it . If he mixed it with something that cannot be told apart from it – such as mixing wheat with wheat – then he has to give back the equivalent, by volume or weight, without mixing it. If he mixed it with something the same or better, or he mixed it with something different that cannot be told apart from it, then the mixture should be sold and each of them should take his share of the price, in proportion. If the value of the seized goods is reduced in this fashion, and it sells for less than what it would be sold for if sold on its own, then the one who seized it has to make up the loss.
The scholars also mentioned regarding this topic that “all hands involved in seizing property by force are responsible and must guarantee its return.” This means that all hands which received the seized property from the one who seized it must all guarantee to replace the property if it is damaged or destroyed. These hands number ten: the hand of the one who buys it etc.; the hand of the one who rents it; the hand of the one who takes it in order to possess it without paying anything in return, such as one who receives it as a gift; the hand of the one who obtains it to serve the interests of one who is paying him, such as an agent; the hand of the one who borrows it; the hand of the one who seizes it by force unlawfully; the hand of the one who has it under his control such as one who seeks to use it for trade; the hand of the one who marries a woman who was seized by force ; the hand of the one who takes it in return for something without any financial transaction being involved; and the hand of the one who destroys the seized property on behalf of the one who seized it.
In each of these cases, if the second person knows the truth of the matter, and that the one who is giving it to him is the one who seized it unlawfully, then he is also responsible for replacing it, because he transgressed when he knew that there was no permission from the owner of the property. If he did not know the truth of the matter, then only one who seized it in the first place is responsible for replacing it.
If the seized property is of a type that is usually rented out, then the one who seized it has to pay rent for property of that type for the period during which he kept it, because the benefit is something that is to be measured in monetary terms, so he has to repay that as well as returning the property itself.
All of the ways in which the one who seized the property has disposed of it are null and void, because he did not have the permission of the owner.
If something is seized and the owner is not known, and it cannot be returned to him, then he should hand it over to the governor who can restore it to its rightful place, or he can give it in charity on behalf of its owner; if he gives it in charity then the reward for that will go to the owner. In this manner the one who seized it wrongfully may be absolved.
Wrongful seizure of property is not restricted only to taking it by force; it may also include taking it by way of false dispute or false oaths. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And eat up not one another’s property unjustly (in any illegal way, e.g. stealing, robbing, deceiving), nor give bribery to the rulers (judges before presenting your cases) that you may knowingly eat up a part of the property of others sinfully”
[al-Baqarah 2:188]
The matter is serious and the reckoning will be severe.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever seizes a handspan of land unlawfully, will surround him to the depth of seven earths.”
And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“If I decide in a person’s favour mistakenly concerning that which is his brother’s right, let him not take it, for I am giving him a piece of fire.”
From al-Mulakhkhas al-Fiqhi by Shaykh Saalih ibn Fawzaan ibn ‘Abd-Allaah Aal Fawzaan p:130

For children, - Islamic Jokes: Golden Telephone(Islamic Humour, Hilarious Comedy, Funny Story)

An American decided to write a book about famous Mosques around the world. So he bought a plane ticket and took a trip to China.
On his first day he was inside a Mosque taking photographs when he noticed a golden telephone mounted on the wall with a sign that read "$10,000 per call".
The American, being intrigued, asked a priest who was strolling by what the telephone was used for. The priest replied that it was a direct line to heaven and that for $10,000 you could talk to Allah. The American thanked the priest and went along his way.
Next stop was in Japan. There, at a very large Mosque, he saw the same golden telephone with the same sign under it. He wondered if this was the same kind of telephone he had seen in China and he asked a nearby Holy man what its purpose was. He told him that it was a direct line to heaven and that for $10,000 he could talk to Allah. "O.K., thank you," said the American.
He then traveled to India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Turkey, Israel, France, Germany,. In every Mosque he saw the same golden telephone with the same "$10,000 per call" sign under it.
The American, upon leaving Vermont decided to travel to Pakistan to see if Pakistanis had the same phone. He arrived in Pakistan, and again, in the first Mosque he entered, there was the same golden telephone, but this time the sign under it read "One Rupee per call."
The American was surprised so he asked the priest about the sign. "Imam, I have traveled all over World and I have seen this same golden telephone in many Mosques. I am told that it is a direct line to Heaven, but everywhere the price was $10,000 per call."
"Why is it so cheap here?"
The priest smiled and answered, "You are in Pakistan now, son - it is a local call".