Fiqh of Foods and Drinks #1 – Book of Foods
Channel: Hatem al-Haj
File Size: 63.50MB
some sort of cinema sort of audio Saviano Dawson I'm about to proceed. Today inshallah we'll start a new segment or section
maybe we have talked about this before the Divine Feminine sometimes into two branches, and sometimes they divided into three branches and sometimes they divided into four branches. So, the two prank division effect would be affected by that and that simply which is worship and * of interactions.
And then when
when they want to divide it into more subdivisions they divided into
and why is that because our that is a better basically
the fact of a bed that regulates your relationship with God, the more I'm Allah regulates your relationship with others, or silver, everything else or the creation. And now, they wanted to sing about you from the creation. So they have a three pronged division, where they have a Badar, that is of worship, how to regulate your relationship with God. And then a lot of interactions how to regulate your relationship with the creations and then adapt Shariah law that the fact of adoption IE religious advocates, and
This is basically about how to regulate your own conduct. This does not involve a second party, it is not regulating an interaction between you and a second party, when you walk into the bathroom with your left foot
does not have any answer is there any sort of interaction here with somebody else now. So when you when we talk about family, there is an interaction here, between you and your spouse, you and the Guardian, it's an interaction.
But when we talk about, you know,
eating from the right side,
like I'm sorry, eating from the side that is next to the side of the dish. presuming it's it's a large one that is next to you call me medic eat from the side that is next to you.
Certainly here if you're eating with people, that also involves a little bit of interaction, but generally speaking, you know, like even if you're eating alone, to eat with your right hand and so on. That's abstract idea that these are religious advocates and customs are that and then the like, if you want to divided into four different types,
also execute from the rest of the creation, the the judiciary, because your relationship with the judiciary is different from your relationship with the rest of the creation. It is not a relationship between equals.
So they have cut out what was in the federal judiciary
due to the prescribed punishments. denat would be penal laws. So
so that's a four pronged division of today, we are going to be discussing a segment of
Sharia law that the effect of customs and religious advocates or religious advocates and customs factory outlet Emma that does not involve an interaction between other macula feen
which is other accountable creations, but it involves what is halal and haram for you to eat and drink. I called it fair kehlata Emma, what should I buy the whole foods and drinks for basically, clarity. But if you notice amount of Kodama called the keytab Kitab, otter Emma, the book of foods and he did not say well as labor and drinks because according to the ham bodies and it is a controversial issue. Drinks are foods, you know, liquid is considered still
and they basically argue that Allah subhanaw taala said in the last 30 koombana
Within a 70 millimeter movie, no mini from a Jedi woman who Allah subhanaw taala will test you by a river that you will come across whoever's drinks from it is not from me, like it is not part of my group. And whoever does not drink from it in their home in the he is from me. What did he say? Whoever does not drink when Melania bomb who so used to refer to
drinking, and a lot of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said about Zamzam, multiple men when she fell circum so the water absorbs them is food for those who need food and cure from disease or cure from endless so then the ham bodies would consider Matt to be part of the mortal mat
or the Oklahoma so Atlanta does not only refer to solid foods, according to the ham bodies, but also refers to liquids.
So that's why he said the tablet is the book of foods and then a member of Kodama Rahim Allah who died in the year 620 after Hitler and his book lambda, which is a ham body manual or primer have
said, we're here to learn. We're here meaning the upper Amer
now I am haiwan or how you who who hire an innovator Oh, they are of two types animals and others. And the reason why he said a long time and he did not say Tom although Tom which means food is Mogens it, you could have said Tom, and it would not be
it is basically a name for the genre of all foods calm is a name for the genre of foods, but he wanted to use the plural to infer something he wanted to use the plural versus smidgens to infer something to us, which is that there is a variety of time and the outcome of different types and they have different rulings. There are like animal or you know, foods and and non animal foods. There are permissible foods and non permissible foods and so on. So that's why he wanted to use the plural and not just say Tabata and he started by saying that there are two major types of foods
hyaluronan Ohio animals or that you know, animals and others. For America you don't have to run for kulu MOBA, illa mccannon Addison, how modren cast sumome has for all foods other than animals, they are permissible meaning they are all permissible except for that which is filthy or harmful, such as poisons, he said filthy nudges or other harmful such as poisons, and that will take us to addressing you know, there is so much here and that statement that needs to be broken down. First, he is starting by saying kulu every all the non animal foods are mobile
too turriff except for such and such theory refer to a major legal Maxim or failure that major legal Maxim is allowed to fit ESEA and a baja or acidophilic ion and eba the default concerning things Assia all things
or all substances you know not actions, substances there is a difference between actions and here I am things substances. So the default concerning goal things, not actions or things is permissibility is permissibility, or non liability permissibility or non liability. It's called the acidophilus er or an ion and evacs iba
haarsma means that default
in cashier all things
because when it comes to actions when it comes to actions for actions we have a better and we have our that we have a better method we have our that help us live a better will have the default concerning worship is
or restriction maybe you could say restriction and Tim you know you have evidence that this is mushrooms or this is prescribed but when it comes to ally that last little fella that in a bit
when it comes to customs so worship
and customs when it comes to customs what is the default default is a baja
default when it comes to worship is
no restriction prohibit hazard hazard which is
until proven until proven true or prescribed. But here we're talking about things
things I am the sub you know actual things in in the in the law had created for us on Earth, what did the law say about them and sort of the Baccarat who come out of the Jamia semester last summer it is he who created for you all that which is on the earth Haleakala calm created for you, you know Sahara Lacombe another versus subdued for you. So for you means everything is permissible for you, that puts the burden on the one who claims permissibility or the one who claims impermissibility it puts the burden on the one who claims impermissibility So, the default regarding all things is a baja or miscibility.
Why did he though, restrict this Chi the or this Maxim when he spoke he said and keep in mind these fuqaha they were just great. They use the very precise language and you can drop benefits from every word or every letter in every word
or conjunction or any, you know everything you could draw benefits from their language. So he says for amiodarone haiwan for good luminova has four holes, foods that other than animals rely on other than animals. Why did he say this? Because we will come later when we talk about slaughtering when we talk about that car. It's not Zakah it is that care, you know you can get an Egyptian to do this right because
the you know, whatever comes out of the tip of the tongue of us What do we we have difficulty with that, but it is that care
which means to make permissible to make the animal permissible by proper slaughtering. So we will come to talk about veka
it is going to be a different story. And we come to talk about hunting side where we're going to use a different car either or Maxim. What is the header or Maxim that we will use is circa Saudi rahimullah in his mazuma car. Pena says when asked Lou
of a die
one nap see
what am Whalley
hurry Moo ha
had aka holla who
man human do
so we'll also fill out
the default concerning of that of that would be intercourse, reference the intercourse and reference to you know
sexual relationships one who me and that would refer to
meets the plural of law meets one nap see and it refers to blood you know. So it refers to life
when a when it refers to not only currency or money as you think of it cash, but property, everything that is your property, one naps one, one home you and nap see what mid lane mousumi
of the inviolable. So the life and the property of the inviolable, inviolable and masumi is who?
That's it, no, that is not it. So actually four different people, you deserve it, this is not by four different things, Islam is certainly
at the top of this, then you have
that would be the more I had, or the more I had, and then you have Zima that would be the zimmy. And then you have a man that will be
so hard is the treaty, those who sign a treaty with you become inviolable, them are the non Muslim subjects of the Muslim country, those are also inviolable command are the
people of warring enemy, that have sought asylum or
security from you, and you have given them even they belong to a warring enemy, know, half of the here, and they are not from your land knows them here, but they have sought security, then, and you have given them and you should give them security. And then they become inviolable. So four things would make you Muslim, inviolable Islam are them a man slam treaty, or agreement, contract covenant, whatever, them being a non Muslim subject of a Muslim land, and a man security. And as we said before, with after the United Nations, the League of Nations, the United Nations, Muslims are involved in treaties with all countries,
the division of you know, that of Islam that go for the sort of, we can have less than, and that Alam nowhere, every Muslim is basically free to practice their religion.
With security, then we would call this.in. And we would make the default for the whole world data on land of security and 10. It is not, you know, the default it does not mean it would never change, and that it is not, you know, if Muslims are persecuted in one place, that is not the man or not, and it is not a lender of security. But anyway, we'll also fill up that to whom you will not see what I'm wearing even masumi to hurry Mohan. So the default concerning all of this, so why is the default impermissibility to make you extra cautious when food that is which food,
Be careful, make sure it has had
and sexual relationships. Be careful. Make sure it is halon food make meat meat make sure it is Helen, before you eat because the default is impermissibility the life and the property of others. The default for them is impermissibility. So you need to verify the Atlantis there are four of them
before you take them or claim them or pursue them to hurry Mohan hachioji and Hello there.
permissibility until the handler comes or permissibility comes until permissibility becomes known, firsthand. So, understand that Allah May Allah guide you may or may not know that which is being presented to you, you know, from Pamela Lee from M LA, which is to present something to people by hand and whether they will be writing it or not writing it, but your presentation.
What do you what do you have in
your presentation to them anyway. So, then we have different stories here. Non meat foods that are the default is permissibility meat foods, the default is impermissibility be extra careful. That takes us to another discussion. What about things that have come from meat sources but they are not meat? They are likely
permissible until proven otherwise. It gets a little bit contentious here.
What about enzymes? What about the cheese thing? Cheese things, you know, hit a mama man and that is the position that is adopted in Atlanta on Hydra monta and many Hanbury books that he was asked about cheese, he said, hate any cheese, regardless of the source. He was asked one more time about cheese. And then he said, but specifically about the cheese of this Rastafarians, he said that he I don't know. But He then said, He then said, and that's because of his water on his piety. But then he said he then said that the the most authentic report we have, which clearly talks about his
leaning, because he goes by reports
and he goes by reports from the Sahaba. So he said the most authentic report that we have is Omar's saying, Sam Allah alayhi wa Kuru you say the name of Allah and eat it. When Omar was asked about the cheese of the Zoroastrians, some Allah Allah, He will go to unit mentioned the name of Allah and eat it.
So now the story of the enzymes
is is an interesting story. So we can say for instance,
in terms of explicitly allowing enzymes of dead animals
Hey, there is a report that's not the authorized report in the hand very measurable, though it's a very strong report and the hanbali method chosen by anything May as the stronger hand the HANA fees would explicitly say that enzymes of dead animals are permissible.
Enzymes of animals that have not been properly slaughtered, are permissible, why? Because they are liquid not flesh. So they they are not alive to become dead. And when the animal died that night, just the fact that they are with in a container that is Nergis container that is nudges does not render them nudges does not render them notice is that clear. So, they are liquids, they are not flesh, they are not alive to die in the first place. And the fact that they are in a container that is natus will not render them notice. So enzymes of that animals are fine. Now, there is
a little bit of a new ones here. Although fancier or poor a poor sign enzymes would take the same ruling.
But they did not mention this.
They have been silent or they have explicitly forbidden for sign enzymes. So they did not clearly but that is a bit strange. Because as a medic, himself as an bannerghatta see a book by of neurosurgery the grandfather was asked about this enzymes of pigs in particular, and he said there are Hippo and harima halaal and I don't like to make impermissible
That which is permissible and managed study by Roger Casa de nuptse, para SV has for someone avoiding it for himself, you know out of water, there is no harm in this. But clearly the mathematic is saying that I am not going to make this forbidden, someone wants to avoid it out of water, that is fine. Yet when they talked about that, when when the latter scholars address the time of qualification of Philip had dressed for sign enzymes, because of the intense sort of repulsion toward pork, they did not apply the same rule of enzymes of that animals to poor sign enzymes, those who spoke about the earlier ones, it did not matter for them. And we can say also that for the
earlier ones, they did not make the distinction between poor sign and non poor sign because when they were asked they were asked about the Zoroastrians Austrians ate pork. The Zoroastrians did not believe in the prohibition of pigs or pork, and the kill pigs and their enzymes would have come from pigs, but they did not specifically make that distinction the earlier ones. They in the more authentic reports and the better traceable reports as an Abu Dawood. He reports from the Sahaba that they ate the cheese of the Zoroastrians, and did not inquire about it. They ate the cheese of the Zoroastrians, and did not inquire about the opposition, the medic is in chapter is on the other
important in the hand bellies would argue that they had thought it was cheese of the Christians. Christians ate pork at that time. But regardless,
they argue that they may have thought that is the cheese of the Christians that didn't solve it doesn't solve it completely, because the Christians at the time did eat pork.
So then we have a report that that is questionable in terms of its traceability to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam that he was himself asked about the cheese, the cheese of this Rastafarians and he said, Hello Hello man. Hello Hola. houfy keytab while ha Rama Rama Hola, houfy keytab were my sacaton who
who are mimma.
So a holiday is what Allah had made highlight in his book. And Haram is what Allah made Haram in his book. And what he was God was silent about is exempt. Pardon, excused, etc. Often, okay, overlooked.
The if this is not traceable to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam as an answer concerning the cheese of the Zoroastrians, it is traceable to Sandman and faricy authentically, at least it is a statement of as a hobby, at least it is a statement as a hobby, meaning what meaning eat it, there is no prohibition in the book of Allah, about the enzymes of the animals or cheese. Having said that, having said that, a it seems to be the overwhelming concurrence, they divided the you know, the the, like I told you,
they were divided over the enzymes of dead animals, they were more assertive about the prohibition of the enzymes of poor pigs. But they there is like strong concurrence among the scholars particularly the earlier scholars, that you do not ask. You do not investigate. You do not ask you Do not investigate. That is that is everything that is reported from them, you know, and so and so Roxy and mob zoo, Mr. Mohammed when he was asked about the cheese of the Zoroastrians, the mathematic. When he was asked about their cheese, you do not ask you Do not investigate. That is clear when it had been 180
I mean talks about this in, in history.
referee scholar in the book, so, that the he, when he talks about this
he corroborates the statement of Maverick. And he says he says, has four
has for the the level and time series Germany share me live on time. Cheese that people say is made with the enzymes of pigs. It is Halloween. Don't ask presume that it is Halloween. Don't ask.
That is what the moment
like Tammy said what Damien said is along the same lines, he specifically talked about the Franks, you know, that is the fringe. That's the Crusaders. He he was asked about the cheese of the bottle in a year. The heretical is groups, some heretical groups that are esoteric explanation for everything in this area that is counter to the parent. That is why they will call the bottle a year and they will consider it too far by Allison. When he was asked about the cheese of the button a year. He said we have two different opinions. They are both excusable. The mockolate can take whichever one.
He said we have two different opinions, one report to promote mad which is the position of Abu hanifa impermissible ematic is in Jaffa is another report of the Hanbury method impermissible and he said the mocha lead can take whichever one and why is he saying this? Because the controversy is a strong controversy, executable, all of them are much tired m&ms, he said the mockolate can choose and that is true when that there is agreement when it is not clear for you which one is stronger, which is not is not clear for you and which one is the intent of the legislator, you can choose. Now you're not going to scan all of them as I have to find the easier positions. But when you come
across a position where there are two credible positions you can choose.
Having said that, he did not only limit but he in another place in another place in his book or in his fatawa. He did clearly express his leaning and his leaning GWAS with the hanafy position that it is okay. And it is permissible that was his leading, but in that particular segment, he was talking about the candidate having the choice to take whichever position they want to take.
When he the question that was posed to him was about the cheese of the button a year he extended this to the cheese of the Zoroastrians and extended it to the cheese of the Franks. He said
they claim that they don't slaughter their livestock or their animals. So the same story that we have nowadays, it's pretty much the same story that we have nowadays. The Franks. They said that they don't slaughter, although the architect bees, although they are Christians, but it is the same dilemma. It is said that they don't slaughter their animals. So what about the cheese? He's follow whichever position you want to follow in a different place. He argued on behalf of permissibility that is the Hanafi position that is one report within the Hanbury
mother. So when we say what also for whom you and FCR Mr. Dylan Masami.
Hello Fatima de Mayo mailloux. When we say this, we are specifically talking about meat, not byproducts, not derivatives, specifically about meat. When it comes to enzymes. When it comes to non meat
basically parts of
Have those animals,
then it is not basically set in stone, that the default is impermissibility that the default is impermissibility. So, to sum up the default in all things, not actions is permissibility actions, we will have worship and customs, the default in worship is restriction default in customs is permissibility out of ESEA, which are things not actions, we will exclude and home
is re is referring to sex relations, it's not referring to the thing and as referring to the action, but enough what am when it is preferred referring to the life and properties or stem per the all of this would pertain to actions not things, but out of that default of permissibility in all things, meet his ex included and that is according to the preponderance position within the for mazahub. But out of meat,
enzymes and the you know, non meat parts of those animals are not
are not impermissible by default by agreement, there is here disagreement and the preponderance position based on all of the reports that we mentioned from the setup and ematic and the mathematics and so on and so forth is what
is this position? The you know, is that it is, you know, these things are permissible, but based on the
close to the agreement of close to the agreement of the earlier scholars and righteous predecessors, when uncertain. What do you do? Don't ask.
Therefore, we don't need to basically
comprise books of haram ingredients. We don't need to teach our teenage kids
basically textbooks of haram ingredients and demand of them to read the ingredients all the time, and then use their app or use their textbook to refer to what is halal and what is haraam? There are certain things that are out there in your face that are haram avoid them. So if it says lard on the package, avoid,
and things of that nature. But otherwise, you don't need really to go
to extremes and investigating these ingredients. They're harmless.
And this is my position. Certainly this is not the only position but this is what I believe in and what I believe to be the spirit of the Sharia, and the attitude of the pious predecessors
and the earlier scouters, including the great emails.
So going back to his statement to Hanawon, Iowa and Ohio from Ohio Hi, Juan Franco Lumumba, Elena cannon Addison how modren cast sumome they are of two types animals and others as for all foods other than animals, they are permissible except for that which is filthy and others who are harmful such as poisons.
So now he starts to talk about why why things with food, where the default is permissibility why some would not be permissible.
And he says he gives you two LS here, one of them is Natasha
And the other one is what is this and the other one is bad or harm.
Okay, so now let us talk about why some things would be Haram.
And I may actually need to go a little bit down there. And
let me come to this, these are two.
Let me come back to this to talk about the editor when we talk about the individual haram animals
And then we can talk about all the code, all the reasons why some of them would be haram and how can you figure out if a particular animal, if someone for instance, if you went to, like some country, for instance, where they eat everything, and somebody presented to you
something that you've never heard off? How could you tell if you should eat it or not? Personally, if you were me, I would not eat anything that I have not heard of before. But some people are a little bit more curious and like adventurous.
So, it is mine.
But let me first to get, you know, over the drinks, and then I will come back to the foods and talk about this particular issue that he mentioned here, which is an adjuster and borrower has to have the reasons why something would not be permissible. So the sheikh says afterwards what actually led to kulu Hamada Illa mascara in
whom he can probably Rasulullah sallallahu Sallam kolomoisky and haram mascara. Meanwhile, familiar Olga female O'Hara
all drinks are permissible except to those that cause circular intoxication those are forbidden whether large or small amount regardless of their source. This is because the Messenger of Allah sallallahu Sallam said, Every intoxicant is haram, and that which would cause intoxication in the amount of an FARC, which is somewhere about 16 to 100 pounds or liters.
pounds or liters,
I think pounds.
But because they are different pounds or different, it's about 16 to 100 pounds.
and full of it is also forbidden to consume a handful of it is also forbidden to consume anyway, it is not about the 16th 100 in particular, but if it is large, and can intoxicate you on large amounts, that it would be impermissible in small amounts. So he says here, all drinks are permissible except to those that cause smoke. Is that true?
Does it doesn't mean that you can drink blood.
So he, he wants you to like he's counting on you remembering the last paragraph and remembering from the last paragraph that filthy nudges
are not valid.
So you cannot drink blood, you cannot drink poison.
He's counting on you remembering those and then he says because like I said for the honeyberries assura is part of the upper Amer puram refers not only to solid foods, but also to liquids.
So, is he saying what actually Becca Luna mocha Illa except my Oscar a lamb asker and you know it is implied whatever I have mentioned in addition to whatever I have mentioned, which is the miscibility of filthy and harmful as for the yesterday but in particular aside from these two reasons of prohibition, we have another reason for prohibition which is intoxication. And he says in any amount and regardless of the source has already a loved one who said
to him and farmer way to snowman comes at us Yeah.
What? while hindpaw was shy, while acid so NASA has been hammering away at us now home infancia T. 's here.
had an interview with tamari well, while hen party was at one loss of
the provision of Chroma was revealed, while it was being made when it was being made of five things, grapes, dates, wheat, barley, and honey.
champagne, whiskey, anything, all of this is doesn't matter what the source is, apples, the you know, whatever cucumbers whether whatever they will make it out of
it does not matter what matters is
intoxicating because all matter at the end of this and not only comes from the Prophet, you know
kolomoisky and Quran the Prophet said every intoxicant is haram. But Omar said explain the meaning of grammar while hamro Maha Maha after he mentioned the five sources he said while hamro Muhammad Allah and hombre is whatever covers confounds the mind camara you know the femur of the sisters. Okay. So, income muhammara
the farmer is whatever covers the mind.
Okay. That is why some of this colors like never we have been a mayor have been harder. And others do not make any distinction between intoxicants that are not in a liquid form like hashish like marijuana like or you know, opioids wherever they come like in their plant form or
whatever form that is, they do not make any distinction between that and from. So, intoxicants are not only you know, from like the liquid and toxicants but these scholars, there is no distinction whatsoever. So, they can apply all the rulings of hammer to the non liquid intoxicants. Solid intoxicants, whether they are plant origin or chemical origin, whatever origin to them, it's the same. Now you have people like in hip hop and Karachi and zecharia Ansari, great scholars as well, who made the distinction between hum and those other intoxicants.
hate hate is basically it is basically
without Bay without examination of the reality of
their effects, the effect of wine and the effects of non liquid intoxicants. If you will just go by reports, you will be more inclined to the position of the first group and now we have made they may have been harder
you will be inclined towards their position because it makes sense. You know, it doesn't matter if it is liquid or not liquid at the end of the day if it isn't toxic, and that is karma because of karma Muhammad Allah Hawk liquid llamas Quran Hara and you will be a sad husband but you will be assertive more supported by reports transmitted reports. However, given the different effects between farmer that is of alcoholic origin, that is alcohol that causes intoxication and these other intoxicants, we can
say at least I can say
you don't have to say it. I can say with confidence that the position of an hottub and Rafi
is actually stronger.
It is not those intoxicants are not come.
Remember this I hope that I mixed it with my statement so that it doesn't get cut and pasted. Remember this.
They are all haram because they can found the mind. There is no disagreement between the scholars about the hardness of things that would confound your mind that would impair your
Judgment, that question is whether they are haram because they can find your mind or they are haram
by the mere sharing of the name of hammer with come,
is Ts Nova we is it ps? Is it like an analogy that's at the level of language, where it is not actually a technical analogy. They are saying that these things are called hunger.
text of revelation that speaks about hum speaks about hashish and cocaine and everything else about marijuana and cocaine and everything else. The same text, there is no reason here to for analogy or extrapolation or anything. But this is not the position that I believe in. I believe that all those things are haram because they impair the judgment or confound the mind. However, they don't take all the rulings of
having said that, which rulings Well, the notch here was come one you will not apply to have done someone who got high on marijuana or
whatever opioids two
you will not consider them all you will not remove them all out in terms of medicinal uses, you could use them as we use morphine all the time and in medicine, you could use them for medicinal
purposes. Three, it will not render you notice if you touch
them because they are not necessarily home. So they are not necessarily high in
I don't believe the comedy to begin with as much as that is but this is also a minority position. The majority believe that karma is notice to touch.
But that's a different issue. But even if you believe that karma is not just to touch, you don't have to necessarily believe that these things are not just the touch, no had not noticed the touch, medicine and uses are okay whereas Minnesota users have come or not okay. By agreement, particularly when we talk about a harmless surf or pure hum.
The prohibition they are harm because they can find the mind.
So, that is as far as labor are concerned, and we said that every intoxicant is haram. But
the idea here is the word the muskerry, that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam used use,
does not have to necessarily apply to marijuana.
It we, for convenience we use in toxication to translate maschere but most care would apply it to the set of effects that alcohol produces in a human subject.
That set of effects that alcohol produces are different from marijuana, anyone with a literalist knowledge of toxicology or medicine what or experience
with understanding the differences between the two. So that is why we I am saying that these things are not maschere they confound the mind therefore, they are haram by agreement, but they are not muscular because they don't produce the same set of effects that are produced by common
Then the Shaykh said, we're intercalated from Ruth Porat, we'll handle it. We're in her Leila lamb got her
and it from returns
from returns into vinegar by itself it becomes a pure and permissible to consume. However, if it is 30 and turned into vinegar, by human intervention, it does not become pure by human intervention is between parenthesis because that is an addition for me because it is the verb is in the passive voice. It does not talk about human intervention but that is what is men who live that made into
Or made into vinegar, it is presumed by human intervention. Okay, so that is another issue here, red wine vinegar and all of these things.
Now if you want to avoid them out of water that is certainly commendable are they harm that's another issue and don't ever mix the two
on your person on a personal level in your personal practice be as well as you want to be.
But when it comes to halal and haram Morocco, democracy falls in America Hello have a haram later life.
So, don't say to that which your tongues like to the falsehood of your tongues scribe This is hot out and this is harder to fabricate lies against the law you know. So, it is not up to your liking or your water when it comes to holiday haram that is something that should be left to the metalheads and your own choosing is not is not to be forced on people.
Okay, so now, by agreement by agreement, if hum
turns into vinegar, by itself, it was left you know, unintentionally left in the heat in the sun. And then people came back and found that spoil. That's another word for them. You know, for like non Muslim, if you leave your home, you come back you find that vinegar that's spoiled, because it is cheaper. Now. So you found that it became vinegar.
My agreement this vinegar is allowed to consume.
This is a weird agreement.
Because it relies on a concept called the st hallah which means transformation.
Once something has transformed into something else,
does it do the same rulings of the initial substance carry over to the second one to the end the product or not? The staff is at hand berries will say not.
And the HANA fees in theory and the HANA fees and the medic is will say yes.
I'm sorry, the that's the opposite. So the hammer fees and Maliki's will say the new substance does not have anything to do with old substance. If it has transform ontologically then its rulings also will be transformed.
Anytime era Hema holla despite has herbalism shows that Hanafi and Maliki position which is also a position within the Hanbury method, because it seems stronger, that when the name and the attributes of a substance change, the rulings of it should change as well. The rulings of it should change as well.
That is also the position of of nasm.
But despite their this agreeing over this principle of transformation and whether transformation wouldn't render than us substance
different completely different in rulings from the old substance. They agreed on this one particular application.
They agreed on this particular application. If comm turns into vinegar by no human intervention, that vinegar is harder.
Now, if hum turns into vinegar now by human intervention.
Hey, is this vinegar Helen?
So who said Helen
honeyberries and Maliki's who said her arm sapphires and
this is Hana fees, Hana fees and medic is hella Haram. shafa is ambarish embellies. Okay, so Jaime's medic is Helen Safa is have various Hara y.
Safra is from Belize.
said that and this is reported by Muslim from Anna's. He was talking about Abu talhah Abu Taha had orphans under his care. Before camera became Haram. Before clamor became decisively Haram. He had purchased the hammer to invest for the orphans from the money of the orphans. He had purchased some to invest for the orphans. He use some of the money of the orphans to purchase from that or later sell it and invest their money for them. When to the profits or loss Mmm, and told him the story?
What did the Prophet sallallahu Sallam say to Abby tell her at that time? horizon hombre waxier at dinner.
spelled the hum.
But not only areca hum, wax it at dinner and break the vessels. Break the container. Yeah, destroy the containers.
somewhat unexpected. You know, I you know, this is one of the things you know this and the seller. The two things that are fatwas of the prophet SAW Selim, that would
surprise you until you
come to terms with with them.
These are orphans, why are we doing this? Okay, so the sraffa isn't combat, he said simply because then again, it does not become hard if you have human intervention. And that is the strongest proof that it would not become hard because this money of the orphans, you know, most most deserving these were most more most deserving of leniency. They were orphans, most deserving of leniency. And if the prophet SAW them said I had a Commodore accident, then that means there is zero tolerance, no leniency whatsoever it can be shown to anyone. Now, this is exactly what the Hanafi is. And medic is used to say that no, it is actually harder.
Because they said that this level of strictness was intended at the beginning of the prohibition of hammer to create this sort of psychological partition between people on Hummer, like if they're poor and came down now with the prohibition of commerce. And then a day later, someone is trying to make exceptions and say, but I just bought this for the orphans. And you know, can we just like, you know, make it into vinegar, something like this. So the prophets of Salaam wanted to create the sort of this repulsion aversion like extreme aversion to harm that he said and break the vessels.
The handoff is automatic. He's what say, What say, Do you believe shafa? Isn't hamburger is that breaking the vessels is mandatory.
The chef exam buddies will say no, he can take the vessels, wash them and use them.
They said why don't you do the same thing? Why don't you say that that this or there
was to show strictness at a time when it is warranted. But it does not mean that this is all mandatory.
And that eventually, because vinegar is vinegar After all, it is not intoxicant, the name and attributes have become different. Why don't we go back and say that when the names and attributes and they were consistent faithful to their principal, Hannah PS and Malik is that transformation renders then you substance
completely different having different rulings.
And although they may have agreed with Hana fees, and Malik is on the principal,
because of the strength of the hobbies and because of his family orientation, he did not agree with them on this particular application. That hammer would be hella that vinegar from hammer would be hella even was human intervention. He sided with his own math here, because of the strength of the hotties. So
Keep in mind
these people were not basically
you know, they were not lakhs they were not modernist, they were trying to seek the truth to pursue the truth.
And that's how we should think of our imams.
And despite my humble ism, I tend to always like to have sort of Colorado tarida like principles that will I will not break to make the law coherent in my mind, and to come to terms and to be comfortable with the law
in like, ongoing principles that would not break. That's more of a hanafy kind of inclination, although I'm ready, but this is, you know, sometimes you can have those in consistencies, that is fine, but I wouldn't consider it an inconsistency.
like, when it comes to a Wi Fi for instance, that we will come to talk about in the next lecture, which is hyena, the permissibility, of hyena.
The Hadees is there, that hyena can be eaten, the Hadees has been deemed authentic, that hyena can be eaten. That is also that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam forbade every
predatorial beast and canine teeth predatorial beast is there and it is more authentic than the IDs of the hyena.
And the hyenas are Fang predatory of beasts. So when you find someone like Edna Lara B, who's not a mother in this, who's not an auntie,
suddenly or anything, saying I can
absorb their prohibition of eating foxes, because they are predatorial, when the only prey on chickens, and they're sort of approval of eating hyenas, which eat human beings, prey on human beings.
I relate to having a lot of you I relate to that line of thinking.
But I do not have a problem with some people who say,
since the Hadith of the hyenas is established, whoever told you that the hyenas in particularly don't have this sort of extra ordinary characteristics that would make them different from all predatory animals, and that would make their meat pie Yep, or wholesome.
That's a line of thinking that is completely acceptable. But we don't have to be accusing each other of laxity, or excessiveness, we just need to calm down and figure out that these things people like reasonable well meaning people could arrive at different conclusions, using the same principles and coming from the same same sort of background. inshallah, when we come back, we will
talk about the different animals and what is hot on what's wrong in terms of animals, portfolio, that's not for the way you're going