Hatem al-Haj – QW01 The Coherence of Sharia – Legal Maxims
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
We will go for,
1 hour on ship,
and then we will take a break,
for, like, 15 minutes.
And we will do a lot of al
mufrad
for where we are and then we will
do questions and answers afterwards, inshaAllah.
As you may be aware, we will go
over Unqa'ad Al Shakayyah, legal maxims,
which is
another way of teaching Thak,
particularly that we would use plenty of applications,
Taqbiqat
and Selah.
When when I was studying this subject,
I
had always wanted
books that provided more examples,
because the they basically,
subjects like,
are a little bit more abstract,
would be better understood if you provide plenty
of examples.
No matter how much you try to explain
it theoretically,
if you don't have applications, if you don't
have plentiful applications,
the subject will continue to be,
vague
and ambiguous to some extent.
So, what we will try to do, here,
inshaAllah, is we will try to provide plenty
of examples
and applications.
I the title for this, I wanted to
say, you know, the beauty of sharia, but
maybe the coherence of Sharia is, more,
suitable,
for the subject because, you know, is
about
it's about the coherence of sharia.
And, it it is about the governing principles
of the the faqaa,
keep in mind,
when they are
making deductions of rulings,
from the from the evidences
for when they are
practicing fatwa.
So we will call it the coherence of
sharia.
And the subtitle is vegan maxims and their
Applications in the Hanbari,
School
and others,
I should say,
because it will it will have,
it will be, to some extent, comparative,
but the applications will be mainly from the
Hanbali School. And I was going to talk
about this a little bit later, but maybe
I should just start by
addressing this issue. Why in the Hanbali School?
Because it is important for the student of
knowledge
to be trained in in 1 school.
You know, the the idea of madhabism,
there is, like, a moderate position on madhabism,
that is not basically,
you know, that many people subscribe to
that does not
go to 1 of the 2 extremes. So
there is there is always a way,
for
a a synthesis
between the thesis and the antithesis.
Between, you know, strict methodism
and anti methodism,
there is always a synthesis.
But the student of knowledge should be trained
in,
in 1 mezab.
There is still,
there is still the possibility of Tuhayur and
Tanakol based on their level of education. Tuhayur
would be selection. Tanakol would be transfer.
When they seek a fatwa from,
scholar from from, different.
There is also the possibility
of,
choosing a fatwa from outside of the form
of zahab
with certain conditions
with certain conditions.
So
the transfer between the mazaib,
is a little bit more,
flexible.
But when it comes to selecting a fatwa
or
following a fatwa
from outside of the form of the,
certain conditions
need to be applied.
So for the majority of people, for for
the masses, for the public,
I believe in the position and this is
a controversial issue. Do you have to follow
a method, or you don't have to follow
a method? I believe that
the public,
people don't have to follow a method. In
fact, they should not be following a method
because it would be an
uneducated decision,
based
in zealotry, not nothing else. Like, if you're
not a student of knowledge who can
make an informed decision,
why are you following this madhab versus that
madhab for the public, for, you know, most
of the people who have not studied the
madhab and have not studied the usul of
the madhab
and cannot make an informed decision,
they don't need to subscribe to a madhab,
and many scholars say that they shouldn't.
But the lay
person, does not have a.
The madhab of the army is the madhab
of their mufti.
But for students of knowledge, particularly
those who are on track to become scholars,
particularly
jurists or fokaha,
certainly the advice of the very vast, very,
very vast majority
of the scholars through the ages
was to follow a particular mihrab until you
get it down, and then you can study
other mihrab.
Many scholars have transferred from 1 madhahab to
another.
You know, Taha'i, for instance, is 1 of
them that we know that that's, you know,
a popular figure. Many of them straddled to
Madham, like ibn Adapaykalaid, who was Mariki,
and Shafi'i at the same time.
So that there is that possibility, and then
then many scholars have had encompassing knowledge of
the form of the Heb, and that they
have
their own selections
or their own,
basically choices.
People like Abna Abd al Barab Nur Rustib
Nataymeya,
They have encompassing knowledge of the form of
a.
However, when we, you know,
just
for a start,
people should, if they want to be on
this track
of scholarship,
they should study according
to Ahmedabad.
Now it is very possible that some of
the audience here and some of the audience
online
are not Hanbalis.
So
how would they benefit from this class?
I think that they'll benefit from this class
if they if they,
intend
to, basically
attend.
Inshallah, they would benefit because,
mostly,
are mostly
matters of agreement between the form of the.
The legal maxims
are mostly
agreed upon in the form of the.
So the Ta'ada itself
will be agreed upon.
The applications that I will mention
from the furor of the Hambali madhab or
the detailed rulings of the Hambali madhab
are not agreed upon.
So
how can you be an active learner if
you, if you,
belong to a different Mazab?
Take the
Go home. That's why I make the document
available in a word format,
in in the folder that I shared with
you. The the the document is available in
word format.
I told you this is not for sharing.
It's for you. But I made it available
in word format so that you could be
an active participant, an active learner. You take
the pad
and you look for applications,
in your own math hub. You try to
find applications for this card in your own
madhab.
How beneficial would that be? Extremely beneficial.
This exercise is extremely beneficial
because when you are an active learner, you
get to learn a lot more than being
a passive learner,
just a recipient, just like a listener.
So,
inshallah,
you should be able,
if you're not Hanbali and if you are
Hanbali and you want to be an active
learner as well,
you could expand on the applications that we
provide here. You could expand on the applications
that we provide here because each 1 of
these 3 are locksmiths. They're called the 8
locksmiths because they have multitudes
of
applications.
So this is how you can be an
active learner.
So in the Muqaddim or introduction and I
told you that this, insha'Allah, would be, this
book, will be published, insha'Allah.
So in the introduction,
I certainly started by Alhamdulillah,
Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam.
And then
I started by
a conversation that happened between an imam Ahmed
and his son, Abdullah.
So his son 'Abdullah,
'Abdullah was not
as as an imam Ahmed, you know, but
he was certainly a great muhadas.
But 'Abdulillah asked Imam Ahmed about,
horses.
And Imam Ahmed,
said to him, based on the hadith of
Asma,
where where she said that they slaughtered a
horse here in Islam, the prophet salallahu alayhi,
their
their halal to eat.
So,
Abdullah did not want to ask about the
permissibility of eating
horse meat.
'Abdulla wanted to ask
if their
urine is nudges or not, if their urine
is nudges or not. So what did the
Rebbe Mohammed say to him?
He said to him,
I said to you before,
all urine is impure
except for the urine
of,
that whose meat is permissible to eat.
That
which, the or that whose meat is permissible,
to eat.
So what is Alimah Muhammad,
trying
to to basically underscore here? You have to
understand the kawad.
You have to understand the kulliyat.
These are the universals,
through which you could deduce many particulars
and many detailed roadings.
And if you don't pay attention to a
carbonite,
you will not be able
to grasp the,
basically, discipline of Shek. You're not gonna be
able to advance
in, in Sheikh without grasping the the,
tawad.
But he's doing what?
Certainly, the the he was teaching his son,
and his son was a great scholar, you
know, a great mohaddif, a great scholar.
He's the 1 who finished in musnad and
put it together and all of that.
And I'm I'm not saying I'm just saying
that he was not known to be among
the foremost,
Bab is Havelistain.
Now
then I, you know, I addressed the issue
of Al Madhab Al Hambari, and Al Madhab
Al Hambari is known for following the asar,
the traditions.
It's it's a very textualist,
madhab.
It's a very scripturalist
madhab.
Imam Ahmed,
responded
to 60, 000 questions by habdefanah.
You know? So whenever he
you know, the from another from another from
another from the prophet
or from 1 of the companions.
So his answers to,
almost,
you know, to most of the questions that
were posed to him,
were by hadefera.
So it is a very scripturalist
madhab, a very, textualist madhab.
And, does that mean that,
basically,
the the idea of takarid,
the the idea of having
a coherent legal methodology
should be ignored or was ever ignored in
the madhab, or the imams of the madhab
were not for,
a consistent legal methodology? Absolutely not.
They they were completely for a consistent legal
methodology.
And I say here, to be fair to
to the other mazahib,
just as
in the Hanafi madhab that that that leans
towards
legal methodology,
more than,
textualism.
That does not mean that in the Hanafi
madhab
traditions, you know, prophetic traditions, asar
reports from the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam
and sahabah
were ignored.
Neither
was this ignored in the hambari and the
Hanafi mihtab
nor was, legal methodology ignored
in,
in the Haram in Hanbari Meztab. So in
the Hanafi Meztab,
al Sahar are not ignored.
In the Hanbani madrah, legal methodology,
is not ignored, even if these madrah were
better known
for their legal methodology
or their scripturalism.
And the the you can't separate between the
the 2. You need legal methodology
and you need,
scriptural knowledge
for,
the reports from the prophet
and the the companions.
Now,
so I talk here about, you know, some
people who had
authored on vegan maxims and,
such as,
you know, we we could we could certainly
find,
you could find literature on Al Qaeda,
by great imams in the month of, like,
May Allah,
bestow mercy on
on those who passed away.
There are also,
and everybody I mentioned had passed away, so
may I love so mercy on all of
them. But there is also a number of
scholars who, contemporary scholars who are still alive,
who contributed also to,
El Pa'id al Shafei.
Despite that,
I have not found a book on empowered
al Shekhaia.
So, like,
I wouldn't be basically
want to, write a book unless if if
I if I had found the book, I
would have certainly not written a book because
it would have been much easier,
to just translate an existing book. But I
have not found the book
on Alqad Al Shakayyah that is organized
basically,
and, basically,
books on.
So the the most common 1, the 1
that is followed by, is
to,
start by the
These are the major legal laxims.
These are the most comprehensive legal maxims.
Some some basically
mentioned 4 and 5.
Most of the people now will consider them
to be 5.
And I will write
the 5 here now just
for for a better
conceptualization
of what we would be talking about.
So the first
is.
And some people prefer to say
for the blessing of the exact wording
that comes from the prophet
so
it means matters. All matters
are judged according to their intents
are judged according to their,
intents.
The the same translation would go here.
The second 1
would be
aliyahqin.
Good.
So Ali Yapien is certainty and Shaq is
doubt
is not basically overruled by doubt, is not
negated, overruled,
displaced
by doubt.
So.
The third 1 would be.
I should say that the the the is.
The most of the people would say the
the phrase their phrasing for this Kaaba is
adarar yuzal.
But this is the exact wording of the
prophet
for so for the blessing
of his wording, we will just use.
There should be no harm or reciprocation of
harm.
And certainly,
Darar is harm, Darar is reciprocation of harm.
But when we come to the Ka'ida, we
will talk about all the different interpretations
of, of the Hadith and what the Dara
means in this case. And
How do you say? Actions.
The chart. Yeah.
Would be number 4.
This is number 4 here.
Is what?
Hardship
hardship, difficulty,
hardship.
Brings about
or begets
or calls for
is what? Is,
or to make easy.
So to And then
that?
Actually, the taser would be more
easing,
you know,
because yosra is ease, and taisir is when
you make things easy.
So there it is basically upon the
when he recognizes
the presence of difficulty or hardship
to look for
ease, to look for making things easier for
the,
for the accountable,
person recipient of the fatwa.
And then the last 1 would be ela'adha
muhakama.
Al
Haqqama.
And Al Haqqama is what? Customs, habits, customs.
That is Al Haqqama,
And we will talk about al Hadah versus
al Harful when we come to this. And
then,
basically
the so muhakam means what?
When you're given the power to to rule,
you are mohakam.
This is the basically passive voice for mohakim.
So Haqqm is ruling, and the mohak the
the Haqqim
is the ruler.
The mohakim is the 1 who is given
the power to rule.
So here, they translate this as customs are
given consideration.
Customs are given consideration.
But
it it may be even more powerful than
Arabic when you say,
more powerful than just giving consideration. Customs are
given consideration
because Muhaqqah means,
is given
the power
to rule
or to overrule.
And these so these are the 5. Each
1 of these 5,
legal maxims has,
It has, like,
submaxims
under each 1 of them. So
these would be called.
They are not as comprehensive.
Means major,
you know, but
when we
the other koiad,
other than the 5,
are koiads
that are branches of the 5
or independent.
The branches and the independent
are called the Bay Al Qobra. Some people
would call them a,
but they are not really,
so people hesitate to call them
because each 1 of those
has tons of applications.
So you don't want
to to basically be unjust to them and
call them.
So many people would call them.
You know, they are just not a cobra.
But there is still cobra. There is still
very,
all of these are universal,
you know, you this is sort of universal
principles.
But
anyway, they they have chosen
the 5 these 5 principles in particular
because they have countless applications in FERC.
Just try to memorize the 5 principles. They
do have countless applications in fact, and under
each 1 of them, there are
so many,
that
are branches
of these, 5 legal,
maxims.
These legal maxims are agreed upon by.
Like I said, most of the legal maxims
and we when we come to discussing
some of the legal maxims that are controversial
between the,
we would point this out. But the vast
majority
of legal maxims are agreed upon in the
form of mazahib
even if they disagree on the application,
even if they disagree on the application.
And I'll give you an example. It's a
very common example, very popular example, how they
can disagree
on the application.
For instance,
which means that
certainty should not is not displaced or overruled
by doubt. Certainty is not displaced or overruled
by doubt.
If
you wake up in the morning
and you make wudu, you pray, you know,
Fazhir on time,
and then go to work
And,
by the time,
you wonder if you use the bathroom.
And
if if you're as old as me, that
could happen.
You know?
You wonder if you, had used the bathroom
between
then and now,
and and then you just you just
can't remember.
Did I use the bathroom, or did I
did I use the bathroom yesterday or today?
Was that yesterday or today?
Anyway, you know, all people can relate.
Do you do you have or do or
you don't?
You do. Because what you remember is
I made wudu in the morning, and I
prayed fazureh in the morning.
So I have wudu. You know, I'm certain
I had udu at 1 point,
and now
I'm not sure whether I broke that udu
or not.
Okay?
So 3 out of the form of that
have agreed with this sort of
thought process or line of thinking.
1 must have disagreed. The Malekis disagreed.
They said
that salah is obligatory
on you by certainty.
And,
it will not, you know,
it will not be fulfilled
with doubt. That obligation
can would not be fulfilled
if you have doubt
about your wudu.
So what is certain here is salat is
obligatory on you, and you must perform salah,
with wudu. That is what is certain.
And now since you have doubt about your
voodoo,
then you must repeat,
the voodoo. You must make voodoo.
You know,
eventually, we would have to basically be making
choices,
and we would have to say, you know,
this madhab was more correct than that madhab.
This is not to undermine any of the
madhab
or to be disrespectful to any of the
madhab
because 1 madhab could be corrected, you know,
in 1 application
and incorrect in another application
and vice versa.
We should be basically
more,
assertive thoughtful about this and more accepting
of things of that nature. It should not
be offensive at all to say, well,
the Malekis got a triad here or the
Hanbali is going to try it here or
the Hanafi is going to try it here.
That should not be a problem. It's not
disrespectful
to the other to say
they their position
is,
somewhat,
weaker,
here.
So
anyway,
but we will come to this discussion in
detail, inshallah, when we come to the applications
of the Qaida.
But at least if you want my thoughts
about this, I believe that the Jammu, or
the majority,
were more correct
about the application of this pie, that you
had wudu for certain,
you are not sure whether you broke it
or not,
then you do have.
It's you do have.
So when you pray,
you you have
because what was certain at 1 point
has not been overruled
by the, subsequent doubt,
about your udu.
Anyway,
so,
so because
the
so they would start to buy
the and the branch of this of this
and
then they would go on to addressing,
the other khalad that are agreed upon that
are not considered
as comprehensive
as these,
and that there is no book in the
Hanbali Mazar
that follows this manner of organization.
Some of them would arrange them alphabetically,
like in Mawsawat,
like the encyclopedias.
They would arrange them alphabetically.
But this this this tariqa or this manner
of organization
in is
the most common 1. It and it is
the,
the easiest 1. It is the, sort of,
the most straightforward 1, and it arranges the
qaww'a'id in groups,
and it is easier for the student of
knowledge to grasp the qaww'a'id,
this way. So I followed
in in my organization of the book, I
followed,
this particular,
manner of organization
as in.
Please.
So
then
what I did also is that I included
many, many applications,
like I said, mostly from the Hambari Meza
because of reasons I had already explained.
And someone may ask Oh.
Okay.
Someone may ask and this is a legitimate
question because I ask
I ask myself. This is so this is
an advanced course.
Why are you teaching an advanced course on
vegan maxims in English?
What is the benefit of teaching
advances courses
on,
very specialized sciences
in English? And people have, you know, I
have 1 time,
a friend of mine embarked on translating
Fad Halbarri,
and people ridiculed them. They said, like, what?
You translate Fad Halbarri? For what purpose? Like,
why,
like, someone who will read,
they'll probably they have probably already learned Arabic,
and they should be able to read
in Arabic.
And
so that you know,
well, whatever
you think about this, rationale,
However, there are many benefits for transferring these
sciences
into English
and teaching them in English. So I mentioned
some of them,
and you may have read my my introduction.
But I said that
harmony within the Sharia to both Muslims and
non Muslims.
Muhammad Asad
in his book Road to Mecca,
said about the Sharia,
I saw before me a perfect structure with
all its elements designed in harmony to complement
and support each other without any excess or
deficiency,
a balance and harmony
that gives 1 the feeling that everything in
the Islamic perspective
and its premises
is in its correct place is in its
correct place.
I have found no subject
to showcase this particular concept, the beauty, the
coherence
of the Sharia
more
than legal maxims.
That is why I chose legal maxims.
And then I spoke about the urgency of
doing this, the urgency that we,
basically elevate the discourse
and translate,
these sciences into English and elevate the discourse,
in English,
the discourse on the Sharia on Islam in
general,
in English, there is
there is some urgency here.
There is an urgent need, I said, to
convey this wisdom and beauty to the general
public, especially in light of the numerous attacks
on Sharia from its enemies,
the ignorance of many of its followers,
the superficial and even misguided nature of many
of its defenders' postulates,
and the proliferation of erroneous,
or repulsive rhetoric on social media to the
point that some have come to believe that
Islamic discourse
has nothing better
or deeper
to offer than what they encounter.
And this will be very
problematic for many people
who would aspire for,
sort of a deeper,
discourse
than what they encounter.
Like,
and, you know,
the the Islamic discourse, it is really profound.
It is extremely deep, and it is,
people are doing it injustice,
by,
you know,
their superficial take
and presentation
of the Islamic
discourse.
Thirdly, I said,
and this is this is also important, and
then and this is very important because, like
I said,
using people as
a means
is
mean.
You don't use people
as
means,
but
so I'm not basically
teaching
because I want to teach.
And that,
you know,
basically, I had
this sort of unease.
Do I am I teaching Egan Maxims because
I want to teach Egan Maxims or because
I see a benefit in teaching Egan Maxims,
a benefit for the audience,
not for me.
I believe that teach that there is a
huge benefit for the audience, Liegean Maxims, the
beauty
and coherence of Sharia.
And you may say, well, we're Muslim. We're
already aware of the beauty and coherence of
Sharia.
Face can increase.
And
when you're more exposed to more beauty,
you you your face increases because likely your
face is not like the face of Abu
Bakr, radiAllahu anhu. So there is some room,
for work in peace.
In addition to this, in addition to recognizing
the beauty of Sharia,
study in the Naxxim has great benefits in
enhancing the Muslims and a student's
understanding and practice
of their religion. It also broadens their horizons
and develops their skills in comprehension,
analysis,
and decision making,
comprehension analysis and decision making, which brings significant
benefits to all aspects of their life.
And lastly,
I said that some students proficient in both
languages still benefit from studying these sciences in
both languages.
And
that is not only true for students whose
main language
is
a non Arabic language or
it is even
you know? So you had people who perfected
a second language,
people like,
Sheikh Daraz, for instance. So Sheikh
Hassan Shafari, for instance. So sheikh Tafar,
for instance. These people perfected another language, whether
it's English or French.
It
it did benefit them to perfect another language,
even though their their native was Arabic,
but it did benefit them to perfect another
language. It did benefit them to teach the
the the sciences that they have mastered in
Arabic to teach them, in English and to
be
exposed to the literature,
available
in a in a second language.
Then,
you know, that was the introduction, and, certainly,
I ended the introduction by
the customary ending.
And then the for the first,
chapter
or the first section, because I divided the
book
into
4 sections and,
many chapters.
But the first section of the book will
be about,
the preliminary
it's called the preliminary section on the 10
introductory principles of the science of legal maxims,
10 introductory
principles
of the science of legal maxims.
The second will be on
the second section of this book will be
on
the
this
and their branches.
So the so called kubra,
the ligand maxims that are cobra and their
their branches.
The third will be on the independent,
that are not cobra, viral cobra. I will
not call them sovra,
minor because they are not minor.
But the higher cobra, they're not major,
or principles. They're independent
or,
principles.
Like,
for instance.
Is not overrode
by. Like,
basically, the
sort of,
how do you translate this? So Ray is
the ruler,
and tasarraf
would be basically the practice of the in
their ruling,
is contingent on or contingent on the interest
of
the ruled.
Anyway, we'll we'll find a good translation for
it, Brent. Come on. We'll come to it.
They need it.
And so so anyway, these are independent
Lieb maxims,
that do not fit neatly under 1 of
these 5.
So we this would be the 3rd section,
the independent eigenvegnaxioms
that are not branches
of,
these 5. And the last section will be
on.
And,
people,
like usual,
people will disagree over how
you translate this.
So you could call them regulators or controllers.
I felt that calling
basically
is a is a is a is a
legal maxim, in a sense,
that regulates,
the
the fatwa or the rulings
in a very limited scope, in a very
limited scope, in 1 chapter, within 1 chapter.
I personally feel that is
a lot, but it's not
every debt
that,
brings about benefit for the debtor for the
creditor. I'm sorry. Every debt that brings about
a benefit for the creditor
is riba is
riba. I don't need translate rebah.
But so this is why why do I
consider this,
although this would be controversial?
Because it is limited in scope.
And you could apply this to marriage, you
could apply this to financial transactions, You could
apply this to a badat,
to salah and uldu, like we said. You
could apply this everywhere,
in all chapters. But
belongs to a particular you know, it regulates
a particular
set of rulings,
or, you know, that that pertain to,
riba.
Then,
so these are the 4 sections.
The first 1 is
about the
introductory
principles
the 10 introductory
principles what are the 10 introductory principles What
do we mean by 10 introductory principles, anyway?
So, when they teach a particular science, they
want to
familiarize
the audience, the student, with
the,
sort of the bird's view of the science
and an outline.
They want to introduce the science
to the student.
And
they have
there are 10 principles that you want to
follow,
to introduce a science to a student.
What are these
Sheikh Saba Rahm Allah,
gathered them
and allowed
them for a verses of poetry.
In which he said,
And the meter will not be broken if
you say
instead of
I I like
Okay.
Yes.
Well,
Okay. Remind me.
Yes.
If the
k. Let's take that.
Okay.
So
So here,
the principles
Any bat? Of every science.
Like
definition
subject matter.
Is
the
benefit
or the fruit.
Means fruit
or or benefit.
Means
relationship.
Means relationship to other
disciplines. Relationship.
Wafadluru,
it's virtual.
Wawada,
it's founder.
Name.
And where did the where where did the
name come from?
And,
alastimdah,
the
sources,
the
ruling of the shara.
It's
it's Sharia ruling. The the is it for
the kifaya to learn it? For to
learn it? Is it to
learn it?
It? It's
topics or issues.
Topics.
Some would suffice with some of these.
He who encompasses all of them or knows
all of them had attained
honor.
So so these are the the the this
is what we will be talking about in
the
first
section. We would be talking about
the
the definition. We'll start by the definition because
that's
what they, start with.
We'll
start by the definition. We'll talk about the
subject matter Also, what is the definition,
the benefits,
the virtue,
the relationship to other sciences,
basically its relationship to also the fiqh and
fiqh and other related sciences of, Sharia.
Its name its, its name was with
we will talk about the name was the
had.
And then the sources
and,
Sharia ruling,
as well as examples of some
of the,
topics.
So the
first, basically, thing that they talk about when
they,
address any
science.
That work. It's pretty moving.
He's great. It's
it's where he's he liked the weather.
If I'm open Yeah.
But It is what? You hit a b
score? No. You suck. Yeah.
Yeah. He should've But he
walked out with his deepest
and I well, we divide it up. So
I'm moving back.
But that was
solved it.
Sure. It is.
They're coming up. Okay.
So
what what do they usually start with? They
usually start with the definition.
They usually start with the definition,
which is alhad.
Why did they call this alhad?
Very
stupid.
That's right.
2 piece of soda, 11 dish. Both gloves.
It is
it is but it's Sometimes we'll branch off
just
to to make sure that
You did hear it. You just
I didn't hear it. You hear it? You
get stupid. You
Help Scott.
Stop. Stop the drum. Small beard. To make
sure we have, like, a comprehensive
approach to the topic,
Sometimes we will branch off a little bit.
So forgive me.
Al Hab becomes Al Habd is basically
introduced
into
the different sciences from the science of.
Logic.
Because
Aristotle felt that,
you can't have conceptualization
without a definition.
And he felt that there is definition proper,
which we translated as of.
Right.
By the way,
why was logic translated into mantak?
Yeah.
So
for us, our mantra is nah
because it guides
the speech.
And once you regulate your speech,
you regulate your thoughts,
as well.
So eventually, logic was translated as
mantak.
But mantak is basically about speaking.
Even in the definition of
the,
rational animal,
So the definition of, according to Aristotle, is
what? Rational animal.
We translated this as.
Basically,
if you translate this literally, it would be
speaking animal.
It is actually a Russian animal. It was
translated as Heran Latq, but they recognized that
Motqah here means,
reason, understanding, rationality.
Anyway but this is, this is part of
it. So
quickly,
let me tell you, you know,
where this, belongs and why Al Hadza
is important
even though
I have
basically
take
on Montep.
But let me tell you what the take
on Montep is. The layman take on mantuk
is not
basically
the spoons of mantuk altogether,
but to
examine it critically.
So
when you examine any
discipline or science, you don't want to be
oppositional, but you still want to be critical.
You shouldn't you don't have you should not
be oppositional,
but you should be critical. Mhmm.
And I'll I'll I'll just, in order for
us to to know where this belongs to
the general
discussion, why it had this a big deal,
and why it should be a big deal
Let me tell you this.
So the the science of logic in general,
Aristotelian logic, and and I'm talking about Aristotelian
logic or Monte Kussori,
Aristotelian logic.
It's all about
assumptions that all knowledge belongs to 2 categories.
1 category category is called Tassawwar,
conceptualization,
And the other 1 is called Tasdikat,
Tasdikat,
conceptualizations.
And
assertions,
judgments,
assertions.
Oh, yeah. And
in order for you to have
No. You're not.
Conceptualization,
like,
when we say,
you have to have a conceptualization
of what that means, what
means.
And then when you say,
al insan.
This is an assertion.
This is basically an assertion that is composed
of a subject and a predicate,
And then you this assertion will be accepting
of
affirmation and negation.
Conceptualization
does not is not amenable to
affirmation or negation. It's just conceptualization.
There is no relationship
here whether it is affirmatory or negatory.
There is nothing about affirmation or negation here.
You're just talking about the conceptualization.
And
these are the universal categories,
The 5 universal categories
are needed to
needed for,
which is definition proper according to Aristotle,
and that is
the ultimate,
basically,
the ultimate way
for
conceptualization.
You need a had for conceptualization.
All knowledge belongs to conceptualizations
and assertions.
And for conceptualization,
you need a had. And for alhad, you
need to have an understanding
of the 5 categorical,
universals.
What are the 5 categorical universals?
So in gens,
basically, is the genus,
and nala is the
species.
Genescient.
Alfassa is the differentia.
Elhasta is the property.
Elhara
is
accident.
And in order for in order for you
to have definite a definition that is proper
definition,
these 3 are called what? Zati or essential.
Right. These 2 are called what?
Accidental or?
Very much. Yeah.
In order for you to have the perfect
definition
according to Aristotle,
you need
elgens
with elgens,
the genus, and the differential.
Small color. Example, because examples make things clear.
When you say it,
the human is a rational animal.
The human is a rational animal.
What is animal?
Algiris, the genus.
And then some belongs to that genus.
Animal.
Yes. How did you differentiate the human from
the rest of the animals?
By saying rational.
So
is
a rational animal.
So you have the genus and the differentiator.
How does the differentiator
because ensan is a species.
How does the differentia differ from
the property which is alhasa?
When you say,
is what? Writer.
By potency or by actuality,
by potency,
this
this where,
you know
did you know of any other animal that
who writes or that writes?
No.
No. So it's Hasa.
It it's specific for
the insan.
Hasa,
property that's specific for the insan.
And then
you,
you have the accident,
which is a property that is not specific.
When you say,
an is an animal that walks.
Are there many other animals that walk as
well? Yes. Yes.
So while this is true for Vainsan,
it is not does not sort Vainsan out
from other animals.
So it's
called,
it's it's called an arab, an accident. In
order for you to have a definition,
a proper,
definition,
you will have to have the jinns and
the fas.
Why?
Because if you say it in Sanhayuanunqatib,
does it do a job does it do
the job?
Yes.
It does.
Okay. But
he said that this is an essential
attribute, and this is not an essential attribute.
So
is an essential attribute. CATHIB is not an
essential attribute.
But we we have a contention against this,
because CATHIB is either CATHIB
by
potency
or cathebylchond.
By potency
should apply to every enzyme.
Every enzyme is catererbipolar.
So this this distinction itself
between essential and accidental
is basically,
and it is not only at a main
contention, but many people recognize
that,
that this this distinction is not does not
really hold true. And then,
okay, so you got to the you got
to the definition.
Before I moved to tazdikat and this is
a very quick summary because, inshallah, our next
class would be on mantuk, but this is
the, sort of, the 5 minute summary of
in the mantuk.
But before I move to
the Tazdikat or assertions,
Here is, like, a few time in contentions.
Maybe, like, he had tons of them.
But,
a few time in contentions
against against Montauk and General.
He said that most of the people, most
of the civilizations,
the Chinese and so on and so forth,
they
had,
sort of accomplished
civilizations
without
knowing Montuk. So it's unnecessary.
Who agreed with him completely on this?
Bertrand
Russell.
He said, if you want to do yourself
a favor, don't waste time learning our utilitarian
logic.
But anyway,
so so that was
1. The second is
the 2 assumptions
the 2 assumptions that were made about al
Hadid, that it is,
necessary and sufficient, necessary for conceptualization and sufficient,
conceptualization and sufficient,
he basically
tore them apart.
It's not it's neither necessary
nor sufficient for conceptualization.
He said,
if you
first of all, he said,
when you say,
you say that you can't have any conceptualization
except through.
Definition proper.
Okay.
You told me in San Juan Malteq, you
actually went from the species, which everybody knows,
in San,
to something that's a little bit more subtle
and a little bit more subtle in in
in definition because there are many types of
hya anatomy.
They they all look different and and and
so on. So he made it a little
bit more difficult by going,
to the genus.
And then
you,
you said, Naltuk,
I don't have a conceptualization
of the haiwan or the Nautic based on
your,
proposition
except through a definition,
define both for me.
And if you have to define the,
you have to use
gins and fosk.
And if you have and then
define those for me and then define those
for me, and at least the the sensor.
Because every time you give me a definition,
it's composed of 2 parts. I want you
to define the 2 parts,
and then each 1 will be composed of
2 parts.
And then if you say that it goes
back to Awadiyyah,
axiomatic
knowledge,
I would tell you,
okay, in Sam is,
you know, it's quite clear in front of
most of the people.
But, anyway, so this was 1 contention.
He said that had you not seen the
insan,
it would, you know, this idea that the
Haywan Path, will give you a conceptualization
of the insan without seeing an insan
is false.
It's
false.
And and the other definitions, you know,
for instance.
You're you're
if,
you know,
the the * brays
or the is a is an animal
that brays,
If I don't
if I if I did not hear the
craying of the *, that definition
would have never
given me any
capacity to conceptualize,
Al Himar
or or the donkey
or the sound of the
so at any rate, he said,
if you don't have if you don't have
an empirical
experience
of these things,
the definition will will get you nowhere in
conceptualization.
And
the definition
is not necessary for conceptualization,
either. So it's neither sufficient,
nor
necessary.
But keep in mind that in Mu'arifat
for us
and also in our asthenian logic because, he
has definition proper and he has course of
definition, and he has
what else? And the so
the the,
the nominal
the nominal definition.
So tari for us, when you make tari
of a particular topic, a particular subject, a
particular science, anything,
you make atarif
by what is called the or
a rasm or a love.
And under a rasb, there are different ways
of making tareef.
So we will not get into the, you
know, the
the details of this, but this would be
definition proper, and this would be a sort
of a descriptive
definition,
and this would be a nominal definition.
Aristotle had a causal definition. I don't know
if he had
if he had something that would correspond to
rasim for us
exactly.
Does he, Jake?
No.
So the I don't think that he has
something that corresponds
to RASM in in particular.
So RASM is basically when you have
a definition that is not a complete definition.
You go to the higher genus, not the
nearer genus. You, you give definition by the
genus and
the property,
versus the genus and the differentia.
That would be called the rasumu. But we
also,
use
Taksim and Tamsil
for our definitions.
Taksim is when you
when you say, for instance,
that.
So speech in Arabic is either
name, verb, or
what?
To be able is it? Pound. That's it
for I believe that. This
is very quick and It's. Okay.
But I think there is another word for
it.
These are So this is a this is
a definition according to us because it gives
you
a conceptualization
of what we're talking about, taxyl.
When you say that
water is H2O
So 2 atoms of hydrogen, 1 atom
of oxygen
is water.
Does this give you the does this give
you an idea about water? It gives you
an idea,
but it is not necessarily a definition proper.
And in fact,
most of
you know,
nobody follows our synthetic logic
in in natural sciences and most of the
universities in the world.
Nobody
basically waits for
definite, a proper definition
to conceptualize
anything.
Having said all of that, why am I
saying this?
Because
despite the time being contentious against Al Had
been necessary,
you know, insufficient
for conceptualization
for
conceptualization.
He did not deny
the importance of al Had,
The importance of. He said that is important.
Is important not for conceptualization
of.
Is important for
Tami'i's
distinction, to distinguish 1 thing from another.
And so he was completely for a good
hand, for a good definition
for Tamiz to distinguish 1 thing from another
because
a does not is neither necessary for conceptualization
nor sufficient, but it is important
for 10 years.
So should we be starting
every
sort of,
book or every class
by addressing
or a tariff?
Yes. We should
because it is important for.
So when I give you a good had
or tariff
of
that we mentioned before,
you will be able to tell the difference
between
Al Qaeda Al Shakayah
and Al Qaeda
Al Usuzlayah.
You will be able to tell the difference
between Al Qad Al Shakayyah and Al Qara'at
Al Shakayyah.
You will be able to tell the difference
between
and
and
so
on and so forth.
So
it
to distinguish
this particular science
from other sciences,
not necessarily
full conceptualization.
If I give you many applications,
you will have a conceptualization
of the,
subject of impah. And
and just to finish this particular
for
branching off,
etasdikat,
according to Aristotle,
there is only categorical syllogism
that will result
in knowledge.
So syllogistic
reasoning
not analogical,
not inductive.
I
And the difference
synergistic reasoning and analog analogical and inductive reasoning
is what? Synergistic reasoning, you're you're coming from
a universal that could could only
2 particulars.
So the the the most common example is
what?
Every man has mortem.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is a mortal.
That's esylogism.
So the main contention against this is,
okay. I agree with you. It's good. It's
actually the the that formula results in,
the the, you know, these premises
are correct. The conclusion is correct. He agrees.
He particularly agrees with what's called the
or the first form.
So we're okay. Good.
How how helpful is that? Like, how do
you produce knowledge like this?
Knowledge is produced by coming from particulars
to universals, ascending from particulars to universals to
basically to put down
laws and for the universe and so on.
You have to come from particulars to,
universals.
When you descend the 3 universals to particulars,
how is that beneficial?
How is it beneficial anyway? Everybody knows that
Socrates is, is is mortem.
And
he says,
you say that
inductive reasoning
does not result in knowledge.
How did you figure out that every man
is mortal if not if it is not
through inductive reasoning? No. Every man is mortal.
What do you mean every man is mortal?
How did how do you know that every
man is mortal? He's he's Every man I
saw
was mortal.
What? Did he see old man?
So that is a that is that is
that is that is in that is incomplete
induction.
It's incomplete inductive reasoning. That
is.
And you have not seen old men to
say that every man is mortem. So
the
so, basically,
your assumption
or your proposition
that we can only reach knowledge
through syllogism,
not through induction.
And the issue here for Imam Ibn Abi
Abbas ibn Abi Abbas ibn Abi al Basib
Nitimi
was the fact that
through induction, you could come to certainty in
the existence of God. You look at the
signs in the universe,
you come to,
certainty in the existence of God because
if you require
syllogism to come to certainty for the existence
of God, that will always be a matter
of debate and a matter of philosophical contention.
It's coward.
And he also wanted to defend analogical
reasoning.
So when you say
well, when we say,
or when we say that
is Haram before because is Musker,
and that is the ilah.
And we say that Nabiid
is
muskir, therefore Nabiid is haral.
That is analogical reasoning.
Analogical reasoning is when you
give
a particular
the same ruling as another particular
because of
sharing the same or effective cause,
sharing the same
or reason or effective cause,
the same rationale.
You say that this is that this does
not
lead to knowledge.
But
if you say,
You say this this leads to knowledge.
These are the same premises that are here,
are here,
and you say 1 of them, because of
the foreign,
leads to knowledge. 1 does not lead to
knowledge. He say he says, if you can
identify the ayle, which would be the middle
term in your syllogism,
the middle term is the ayle. Musqir is
the middle term, and it is the ayle
And your syllogism, if you can accurately identify,
you could
accurately
deduce
through analogical reasoning,
a proposition a true proposition through analogical reasoning.
Anyway,
so he says that
most of the knowledge
that is produced,
most of the beneficial knowledge
has to come through
induction and analogy.
You know, from
from particulars to universals,
Induction is from particulars to universals.
You know? And this is how you, in
the first place, got to every man is
mortal
through induction.
And then,
as an analogy,
which is from
a particular to another particular.
But to come down for through syllogism from
the universal to a particular
is few times.
Who agreed with him
completely
a few 100 years later?
John Stuart Millen.
He said
the most futile thing
is syllogistic,
categorical syllogism
because it's you you keep on coming down
from universals
to particulars. How helpful could that be?
But he did not deny
that
a good syllogism
results in knowledge. He did not deny that
a good syllogism results in knowledge. That is
why
we will study logic, insha'Allah.
That is why it is helpful to study
logic
and to come to it not
from sort of, like an emotionally
opposition and attitude because you don't like Aristotle.
No. You know,
Aristotle was a genius. Of course, he was.
Studying this knowledge will be will have some
benefits,
but you come to
it with a critical mind, not an oppositional
emotional
mind, but with a critical mindset.
So next time, inshaAllah, when we come when
we come back,
we will start with
for
or for,
the the definition
for.