Firstly, there is a difference of opinion regarding the ruling on smoking. The majority of scholars consider it ḥarām, while some settle for dislike (karāhah) due to the speculative nature of the evidence. The disagreement lies in the ascertaining of the effective causes (taḥqīq al-manāṭ), which is a matter of the principles of jurisprudence (᾽Uṣūl al-Fiqh) where there is no definitive text for prohibition as there is with alcohol and gambling. The disagreement revolves around analogizing smoking to other prohibited activities based on common underlying causes. There has been no agreement to admitting the underlaying cause in the matter subject to analogy (i.e., smoking). Some even deny any harm caused by smoking.

The correct view is that the underlying cause (῾illah) for abstention is multifaceted, including harm to oneself, financial loss, harm to others (passive smoking), harm to nature and the environment, potential addiction, negative influence on children, and other associated underlaying causes, all of which elevate the ruling from abstention to prohibition (ḥarām).

However, the ruling opting for dislike (karāhah), which is advocated by some Ḥanafī scholars, has its justification from an ᾽uṣūlī (fundamental) point of view (speculative evidence with the possibility of analogy).

Secondly, it is not suitable to apply the rule of necessity according to some Ḥanafī scholars (may Allāh have mercy on them) concerning invalid contracts in non-Muslim lands to justify selling tobacco because of the harm it causes. The fundamental rule “And do not assist in sin and aggression” [Al-Mā᾽idah 5:2] takes precedence over the justification of the Ḥanafī scholars because it is a definitive general rule compared to speculative evidence. Moreover, it [the Ḥanafī rule in this regard] contradicts the overall objective of Sharī῾ah in preserving life and wealth.

Therefore, the questioner should not engage in this trade unless he imitates the view of those who advocate for its dislike (karāhah), which is supported by neither evidence nor contemplation. However, even with the view of dislike, one is not entirely exempt from accountability, even if the sales contract is valid and what he sells is considered lawful.

Fatwa issues by Dr. Khālid Naṣr