If a Mu’takif placed one of his feet outside the the Masjid, would his I’tikaf be nullified?
Answer
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
In principle, if the Mu’takif leaves the Masjid without a valid reason his I’tikaaf would be broken. The word “to leave” in the Arabic language is Khurooj which is the opposite of Dukhool which means “to enter”. According to the Jurists, if a person takes an oath that he would not enter a particular house thereafter he places only one foot inside the house then he has not broken his oath because Dukhool was not established since only one foot was used. Similarly if a person takes an oath that he would not leave his house thereafter, places one of his feet outside the house he has not broken his oath because he did not actually leave the house. Therefore Khurooj and Dukhool is established when both feet are used.[1]
Allaamah Ibn Nujaim (ra) mention in his commentary of Kanz ad-Daqaiq that; Khurooj (leaving) of a Mu’takif is established when both feet are separated from the Masjid.[2]
Therefore if the Mu’takif places one of his feet outside the boundaries of his I’tikaaf is intact.
If however the Mu’takif lies down in the Masjid and stretches his both feet to the extent that it reaches outside the boundaries of the Masjid his I’tikaaf in not void. This is because Khurooj would be regarded if both feet are separated from the Masjid, provided that the person is standing on them. It is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya that; if a person takes an oath that he would not leave his house thereafter he places both feet outside his house while in a sitting position then his oath is not broken. However, if he were to stand on both his feet only then would his oath be broken.[3]
NB: If most of his body is within the parameters of the Masjid his I’tikaaf would be valid however, if most is outside then it would be void.
Also, If the Mu’takif is standing in such a manner that the front portion of both his feet (instep) are outside the boundaries of the Masjid and the back portion is inside then his I’tikaaf would be intact.[4]
And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best
Mufti Kaleem Muhammad
Darul Iftaa, Jaamia Madinatul Uloom
Trinidad, West Indies
[1] البحر الرائق شرح كنز الدقائق ومنحة الخالق وتكملة الطوري (4/ 327)
وأفاد المصنف – رحمه الله – دلالة أن حقيقة الدخول الانفصال من الخارج إلى الداخل فلهذا لو أدخل رأسه، ولم يدخل قدميه أو تناول منها لم يحنث ألا ترى أن السارق لو فعل ذلك لم يقطع كما في البدائع
تحفة الفقهاء (2/ 312)
وإن أدخل الحالف إحدى رجليه في الدار لا غير لا يحنث لأنه لم يوجد الدخول مطلقا
وكذا إذا أدخل رأسه دون قدميه
بدائع الصنائع في ترتيب الشرائع (3/ 37)
فإن أدخل رأسه ولم يدخل قدميه أو تناول منها لم يحنث لأن ذلك ليس بدخول.
المحيط البرهاني في الفقه النعماني (4/ 318)
روي عن محمد رحمه الله. ولو أدخل رأسه دون قدميه لم يحنث. وكذلك لو تناول شيئاً بيده.
[2] البحر الرائق شرح كنز الدقائق ومنحة الخالق وتكملة الطوري (2/ 326)
وأراد بالخروج انفصال قدميه احترازا عما إذا خرج رأسه إلى داره فإنه لا يفسد اعتكافه؛ لأنه ليس بخروج ألا ترى أنه لو حلف أنه لا يخرج من الدار ففعل ذلك لا يحنث كذا في البدائع
[3] الفتاوى الهندية (2/ 79)
وأما إذا كان قاعدا فأخرج قدميه وبدنه في البيت لا يحنث في يمينه إلا إذا قام على قدميه فحينئذ يحنث وأما إذا كان مستلقيا على ظهره أو على بطنه أو على جنبه فتدحرج حتى صار بعض بدنه خارج الدار إن صار الأكثر خارج الدار يصير خارجا وإن كان ساقاه في الدار