Hatem al-Haj – QWD018 Coherence of Sharia – Subsidiary Maxims Under Maxim 1
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss various topics related to the use of words and phrases in various cases, including cases of injuries and breach of oath. They stress the importance of considering the intent and the need for people to be aware of its legal consequence. They also discuss the use of "oppressed" and "oppressed" in various cases, including cases of injuries and breach of oath. The speakers stress the importance of truthfulness and balancing values, and stress the need for action to achieve intentions. They also discuss the use of "immaterial" in relation to intentions and promises, and stress the importance of intention and the use of intentions in a situation where it is not intended to be executed.
AI: Summary ©
Bismillah, alhamdulillah, salallahu alayhi wa sallam, wa rasool
Allah, wa alayhi wa sahbihi wa man wala
Thamma amma abad, proceed.
Al-qawa'id al-fiqhiyya Legal maxims We
call this coherence of sharia because it truly,
truly shows the integrity of the system and
the coherence of the system, the system of
laws in general.
It is all rooted in principles and the
principles are consistent.
And whenever there is departure from the principle,
the departure is because of another principle that
overrides this one.
So these principles are meant to be consistent
and the system can be traced back, you
know, and the legal rulings, individual rulings can
be traced back to these principles.
And when there is a departure, it's because
of another overriding maxim or principle.
So, remember what we are doing?
We are doing al-umur bi maqasidha.
The first major comprehensive legal maxim, al-umur
bi maqasidha, matters are judged by their intentions.
Literally, matters are by their intentions.
It means matters are judged by their intentions.
Matters are by their intentions, which means matters
are judged by their intentions.
What did we cover so far?
We covered the guidelines in the beginning for
this particular maxim.
And we started to cover the subsidiary maxims.
Under each one of these maxims, there are
subsidiary maxims.
And you can have sub-subsidiary maxims as
well.
Which maxims, which subsidiary maxims did we cover
so far?
The first one is la thawab al-aqaba
illa bi niyyah.
There is no reward or punishment without niyyah,
without intention.
And the second one, al-ibra fil-waqood
bil-maqasid wal-ma'ani illa bil-alfadh
wal-mabani, which is consideration and contracts, is
given to meanings and intents and meanings, not
words and forms.
Intents and meanings, not words and forms.
And then the third one, which we covered
last time, last two times, was al-wasa
'illah ahkam al-maqasid.
The means take on the rulings of the
ends.
And we have discussed how this is different.
And I keep on repeating it because sometimes,
you know, people may not be listening to
the rest.
So they may question whether Islam also has
the same Machiavellian rule or maxim or principle
of the ends justify the means.
And we said that it's different because the
ends that we're talking about are different.
And the means that we're talking about are
the ones that have not been assigned a
legal value already or a moral value already.
So they take the moral value or moral
slash legal value of their ends.
And then today we will talk about al
-maqasid.
Maqasid al-lafdha al-aniyyat al-lafiz.
Maqasid al-lafdha al-aniyyat al-lafiz.
Which I translated as the intent of the
speech follows the intent of the speaker.
The intent, maqasid is plural of maqsad.
Maqsad is intent.
This would be intense.
Allah loves, you know, the words that you
utter, the utterances.
Whatever, malfooz.
Malfooz, which is that which is uttered.
You know, speech.
Okay, al-aniyyat are according to the niyyah
of the speaker.
So the intent of the speech, the intent
of the speech follows the intent of the
speaker.
The intent of the speech follows the intent
of the speaker.
So this particular expression is the shafi'i
expression of the particular maxim.
And that's completely fine because like in al
-qawa'id al-fiqh in particular, there is
a great deal of overlap.
And most of the time they agree on
al-qawa'id.
They may disagree sometimes, not infrequently.
They may disagree on application.
And that is, that teaches us one thing
that is extremely important.
Disagreeing on application is expected, you know, even
if all people are knowledgeable and sincere.
And they are not stupid or naive or
insincere.
People can agree on objectives and priorities and
still disagree on strategies.
So just keep this in mind for the
elections.
So this shafi'i expression, we can use
it.
We can use it because we agree with
it.
In fact, we may even agree with it
more than the shafi'is themselves.
maqasad al-lafza al-aniyyat al-lafiz The
intent of the speech follows the intent of
the speaker.
And al-Sa'di rahimahullah, shaykh al-Sa'di rahimahullah,
in his 57th maqsim said, yajibu hamlu kalam
al-naatiqina ala muradihim mahma amkan fil-uqood
wal-fusukh wal-iqrarat wa ghayriha which would
translate to the speech of speakers must be
interpreted according to their intention whenever possible.
Whenever possible.
Of course, sometimes it would not be possible,
you know.
So, like, we're not wunusiyyin.
Like, we're not basically going to disregard the
apparent meanings of words.
So, whenever possible.
In contracts, annulments, acknowledgments, and other cases.
Contracts, you know, annulments, acknowledgments, and other cases.
Okay.
Now, one of the people that were most
basically devoted to this qa'ida, maqasad al
-lafza al-aniyyat al-lafiz, was al-Imam
Taqiyyiddin ibn Taymiyyah, who even said, and this
is a very strong expression of the qa
'ida, he said, Any
speech uttered without intention due to forgetfulness, a
slip of the tongue, lack of awareness, has
no legal consequence.
Which made him take a position that is
very, you know, that is not the dominant
position in the madhhab.
Remember when we talked about talaq al-sakran,
the divorce of someone who is intoxicated?
What is the dominant position in the madhhab?
Is it valid or not, talaq al-sakran?
Valid.
He said it's invalid because, like, he is
intoxicated.
Like, whatever he says is not basically, does
not come from a willful agent at the
time.
And if he's not a willful agent, then
he should not be held accountable for what
he says.
Because he will be, you know, he may
go to fire for getting intoxicated.
You know, he may get, you know, he's
a sinner for the intoxication.
But that does not mean, which is, again,
interesting because it is very fair.
Like, you know, I believe that it is
very fair.
I mean, he gets punished for the intoxication.
But if he's not, if he did not
intend to divorce his wife, it wouldn't take
place.
Now, if the Prophet ﷺ had said that
his divorce counts, no one would have argued.
But we don't have anything traceable to the
Prophet ﷺ.
So this would be a matter of juristic
exercise.
It's the hadi exercise.
Yeah.
He was once asked about, you know, people
who, like sinners who went out, like if
people go to, like, travel for, travel to
Las Vegas, for instance.
He was asked about people who went out,
you know, on a travel, intending, you know,
something bad or evil, and they drowned.
He said, you know, they're sinners by their
travel, and it is hoped that they'll be
forgiven because of their drowning.
So, because drowning, you know, al-ghariq shaheed.
So the one who drowns is one of
the martyrs, as the Prophet ﷺ said.
So if they are Muslim and they drowned,
it's hoped that they'll be forgiven by their
drowning.
They're still sinners.
So you need to look at both, you
need to look at all the data that
you have in front of you.
You do not ignore the sin because you
sympathize with them for their drowning.
And at the same time, you do not,
you don't have to be harsh in your
judgment.
And if these are Muslims who drowned, Allah
ﷻ said that al-ghariq shaheed, maybe they'll
be forgiven because of their drowning.
Anyway, so just try to be fair.
And that is certainly not to say that
the rest of the mashayikh and the madhhab
were not fair by making talaq al-sakran
count.
They had their own reasons.
They wanted to say that he brought it
on himself.
He brought it on himself.
So when you say that he tried to
be fair, like Imam Taqi al-Din tried
to be fair, the other imam of the
madhhab, including the imam of the madhhab, did
not basically intend to be unfair.
They wanted to be just as well.
So we can all be attempting something and
arrive at different conclusions.
Like we could be motivated by the same
sort of fairness, yet arrive at different conclusions.
Next, it says here, the oath is interpreted
according to the intention of the ones who
were in it, as long as the wording
allows the oath.
Okay, as long as the wording allows it.
This is what Imam al-Buhuti in Rawd
al-Murba said, يرجع في الأيمان إلى نية
الحالف إذا احتملها اللّف So the oath is
interpreted according to the intention of the ones
swearing, as long as the wording allows it.
He says, based on the Prophet's saying, indeed
actions are judged by intentions.
So if someone swears, if someone says, you
know, swears and mentions, you know, the roof
or the canopy, and he means the heavens,
then it applies to the heavens, not the
roof or the canopy.
If someone swears by al-bisat, which would
be like, you know, we would translate this
like a rug or something, and he means
the earth, it applies to the earth.
It depends on what they meant.
Because these words can apply to, you know,
when you say al-bina' can apply to
the sama' al-bina' is structure, can apply
to the sama' the heavens.
When you say al-saqf, that's the roof,
you know, so that can apply to the
sama' also, the heavens, the roof.
And then now, so you say, you go
by the intention, and if there was no
intention, if the intention is absent, in rabid
al-murba, Imam al-Buhuti says, if the
intention is absent, what do you go by?
You go by al-muhayyid wal-sabab.
So what provoked the amin?
What is it that provoked the amin?
We will understand it within that context, what
provoked you to take that oath.
We will understand it within that context.
So if someone says, I will pay him
tomorrow.
Wallahi, I'll pay him tomorrow.
And then he ends up paying him today.
Did he violate?
Did he breach his oath?
Okay, someone said yes, and someone said no.
Good, that's what I wanted.
Technically, yes, he did breach his oath, because,
you know, he said, Wallahi, I'll pay him
tomorrow.
He paid him today.
He didn't pay him tomorrow.
He paid him today.
But the intent of the oath here is
what?
Not to delay the payment beyond tomorrow.
So if they were having a dispute, and
he said, Wallahi, I'll pay you tomorrow.
Then he paid him today.
What is the intent?
The intent, Wallahi, I will not delay it
any more than tomorrow.
So if he paid today, then he didn't
violate his oath.
Now, he did not.
He did not, because it's clear from the
context that he intended not to delay the
payment beyond tomorrow.
Not to pay him tomorrow in particular.
Okay, so if the muhayyad is absent, you
know, the cause behind the oath is absent.
What do we go by?
So the first thing is, you know, we
said if the intent is clear, then we
go by the intent.
Then in muhayyad, what provoked it, caused it.
Then we apply it to the specific referent.
So if someone says, Wallahi, I will not
talk to this child.
And the child grows up and becomes an
adult.
And then he talks to him.
Now, did he violate his oath?
Yes, he did.
Because the referent is stronger than the indication
of the word.
The specific referent is stronger.
So Wallahi, I will not talk, it will
apply to the referent, to that specific, you
know, referent of the oath.
The fact that he's not a child anymore,
you know, yes, the indication of the word,
this child, the indication of this word is
that he will not talk to this child.
But what if this child, this very child
becomes an adult?
Anyway, so they will say he violated the
oath, if he did.
Or I will not wear this imamah.
I will not wear this turban.
And then he wraps it as a lower
garment.
He violated the oath.
He violated the oath.
Because he's talking about this specific turban, he
will not wear it.
The fact that he did not wear it
as a turban, but as a lower garment,
does not matter.
Because we're talking about the referent, not the
indication of the word used to refer to
it.
Not the indication of the word he used.
We talked about the masadip and mantip, but
that's a different discussion.
I'm not going to go there.
Okay, so you notice that we go by
the intention.
We go by the intention.
And you notice that they are not making
a distinction here between taking an oath in
front of a judge and taking an oath,
you know, outside sort of a judicial context.
So what do we say about this?
This is the next qaeda.
The next qaeda is هل اليمين على نية
الحالف أو المستحلف Is the oath based on
the intention of the swearer or the one
requesting or demanding the oath?
So I go to the judge and I
make an oath.
And I use equivocation.
I use like words that could basically mean
different things.
And I intend to one thing and the
judge is asking me to swear on one
thing and I intend a different thing.
What is, am I basically clear of guilt
here?
It depends, you know.
Am I like an oppressor in this particular
case or an oppressed?
If I am the oppressor, then equivocation does
not clear me of guilt, of course.
If I am the oppressed, it does.
According to our madhhab.
According to our, this is a controversy here.
So according to our madhhab, it clears me
of guilt if I am the oppressed.
So it says here that the oath is
based on the intention of the one taking
the oath even in front of a judge.
Even in front of a judge.
If the one taking the oath is wrong.
However, it is based on the intention of
the one demanding the oath or the judge
if the one taking the oath is unjust.
And this is what, you know, I'm going
to read this.
It's going to be a little bit long.
So I'm going to read it for you
from Kashaf al-Qana'a because it is
important.
It's an important text from Kashaf al-Qana
'a.
Kashaf al-Qana'a is the commentary on
what?
Al-Iqna'a.
Kashaf al-Qana'a is written by who?
Al-Buhuti.
Okay.
And al-Iqna'a is written by who?
Al-Jawi.
Al-Iqna'a is one of the two,
you know, most important books.
Al-Iqna'a on al-Muntaha.
Muntaha was written by Ibn al-Najjar.
And al-Buhuti wrote a commentary on both.
And a commentary on Zaid al-Mustaqna as
well.
So let's read this.
It says a chapter on ta'weel.
Ta'weel here means ta'reed, ma'reed,
ma'reed.
Ta'weel here means equivocation.
Equification.
Indirect speech.
Speech with double meanings.
Okay.
So the chapter on ta'weel, it says
here, it refers to the one taking the
oath intending by his words something contrary to
its apparent meaning.
And he said this applies whether to divorce,
manumission, or excipiated oaths.
It just, it applies across the board.
If the one taking the oath is unjust,
then it would not be accepted.
The one taking the oath is unjust, like
you go to the court, and someone is
demanding an oath from you, and you lie.
Like you have basically taking money from someone,
and they take you to court, and he
doesn't have enough evidence to prove his case,
and he demands an oath from you, and
you lie.
Of course, like you're guilty.
Of course, this is actually the yameen al
ghamoos.
You know, this is the yameen that will
dip you into the fire, into the hellfire.
So there is no doubt about this.
However, what if you are oppressed?
What if a tyrant basically demands you to
take an oath, and you know that, you
know, if you say the truth, it will
bring on to you much injustice or other
people, other people.
Then he says here, if you are, you
know, oppressed, or you're the party who's wrong,
then your oath will be according to your
intention.
But he explains why, you know, the oath
in the first case, when you are the
oppressor, is according to the apparent meanings of
the words, and he says that the Prophet
ﷺ said your oath is according to what
your companion believes you meant by it.
بِمَا يُصَدِّقُكَ بِهِ صَحِبُكَ So the oath is,
your oath is according to what your companion
believes you meant by it.
So you can't use equivocation except if you
know for certain that you are wronged, oppressed,
and like a tyrant is demanding an oath
from you.
And then when we talk about their evidence
on this, it will be clear what is
meant by it.
So it says here, Suwayd ibn Hanzala said,
we set out intending to meet the Messenger
of Allah ﷺ, and Wā'il ibn Ḥujf,
Wā'il ibn Ḥujf, not Hijr, Ḥujf, Wā
'il ibn Ḥujf was caught by some of
his enemies, and none of us, you know,
so there was like a confusion about his
identity, so they demanded them to take oaths,
you know, so no one wanted to lie.
No one wanted to say, this is not
Wā'il ibn Ḥujf, except for Suwayd ibn
Hanzala, who took an oath and lied, you
know, not lied, but basically he said, he
said here, none of his enemies captured him,
and the group hesitated to swear an oath
to free him, so I swore that he
was my brother, I swore that he was
my brother, so it's not a lie, lie,
equivocation, because they understood from this, blood brother,
he meant by this, faith brother, okay, so
he swore that he was his brother, and
you know, so Ibrahim and Sarah, you know,
Uqti and stuff, when Ibrahim said about Sarah,
she's my brother's sister, and he was released,
so when we came to the Prophet ﷺ,
we told him what had happened, and he
said, you, Suwayd, who basically used the equivocation
or ma'arid, you were the most truthful
and most loyal among them, a Muslim is
indeed the brother of another Muslim, a Muslim
is indeed the brother of another Muslim, so
the Prophet ﷺ said, inna fil ma'arid
laman duha anil kathir, so in equivocation or
ma'arid, there is an alternative to lying,
in equivocation, there is an alternative to lying,
and this was narrated by Termizi, and Muhammad
ibn Sirin said, speech is broad enough, you
know, that a clever person, dharif, dharif, translated
by Basir as clever person, does not need
to lie, no clever person needs to lie,
because speech is broad enough, like you could
always use equivocation if you're clever, that is,
you know, keep in mind, no, because you
have to put these things in context, what,
yeah, that's why fiqh without tazkiyyah is a
big problem, right, fiqh without tazkiyyah is a
huge, huge problem, so what about, similarly, if
one has taken an oath, is neither unjust
nor wrong, he may use ta'wil, like
he may use ta'wil, they, in general,
in the Hanbali madhhab, the idea of equivocation,
they are a little bit more flexible with
equivocation, and they're a little bit more flexible
with lying, even as we said before, you
know, within the context of, al-wasa'il
laha ahkam al-maqasid, the means take on,
the rulings of the ends, so if there
is no harm, you know, and there is
a pure benefit, then the truth is one
of the platonic values, you know, truth, what
are the three platonic values, al-haq, wal
-khayr, wal-jamal, truth, goodness, and beauty, so
there is a balance, in fact, you know,
goodness is not, so the platonic triad that
we usually talk about is al-haq, wal
-khayr, wal-jamal, truth, goodness,
and beauty, okay, but
in reality, this is not goodness, this is
fairness, la'ad, fairness, and the overarching one
is al-khayr, goodness, and that is according
to Plato himself, so goodness is the good,
is God, God the good, therefore, you have
to balance out truth with goodness, and as
we said before, if some tyrant comes after
like a escapee, you know, asks you where
they are, and you know that in just,
like, if you say the truth, the person
will be killed, or be tortured, or be
abused, then you should lie, you should lie,
why?
Because we don't put this value above this
value, we don't put the truth above goodness,
this is a conflict here, so in the
Kantian categorical imperatives, you should say the truth,
because lying is categorically prohibited, but that is,
I think, short-sighted, and sort of deficient
line of thinking.
What is it?
Oh, yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, I'm a grown
old, so that's just like a different word
for ma'arid, it's the same thing, it's
the same thing, it's the same concept, you
basically say a word that may be understood
to mean something, and you mean by it
something else, like, you know, but try to
not overuse it, like if you have like
a, you know, the common example that they
used to give, like if you're at home,
and you don't want to meet a particular
person, and they knock on your door, and
then, you know, can you make, can your
son, for instance, make a circle, and say,
my father is not here, so the problem
is, when your son gets used to this
stuff, I mean, and then what will become
of him if he gets used, like it's
delicate, you know, but as we said before,
just understand that the truth is a hugely
important virtue, so, so,
so, and then, and then, and, and, you
know, the opposite side, so, so, But
then they use the you know, the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam for instance would jokingly
said would jokingly say to an old woman
No old woman would enter paradise So they
use this to say but but honestly speaking
this example this example Eventually he did, you
know, it was just like a joke and
eventually she She was not lied to like
she she knew what he meant He explained
to her that every like everyone would enter
paradise in their age of strength and youth
Youthful will be youthful when they enter paradise.
So this this is basically to be light
-hearted with an old woman He was trying
to be a light-hearted with an old
woman But You know, it should not be
it should not be overused of course and
You know, if you try to train yourself
to be always always truthful except in dire
conditions Like Suayid ibn Hanzala, they caught Wa
'id ibn Hajr.
They were going to kill Wa'id ibn
Hajr He comes forward and says wallahi.
He is my brother Intending that he was
his brother in faith.
I think that reasonable people would agree that
when when it comes to balancing out to
these two values al-haqqa and al-khayr,
goodness and truth, you know The pendulum would
go in favor of lying in this case
If you had if you had to lie,
if you had to lie, he used the
equivocation But if you had to lie you
still lying would be preferred than getting his
blood spilled So So thus we align with
the Hanafi school here and differ from the
Maliki and Shafi'i schools who base the
oath on the intention Of the one requesting
it.
However, it should be noted that in disputation
in Disputation the judge will go by the
apparent meanings of the words innama aqdi ala
nahwi ma asma innama aqdi ala nahwi ma
asma I judge according to what I hear.
I judge according to what I hear.
That's what the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam
said.
Now if the niyyah can be discovered, you
know, if there are qara'in Indications to
point to the niyyah, the intention, we go
by the intention But if the niyyah cannot
be discovered We would go by the apparent
meanings of the words innama aqdi ala nahwi
ma asma.
I judge based on what I hear so
a benefit here regarding garbled speech garbled speech
basically is non-standard speech like speech with
mistakes grammatical mistakes amount every Kind of kind
of mistakes.
So in it up now, it's that's the
states in a look now the sheikh and
here The sheikh would be you know, and
I look now when he says the sheikh
it is Imam taqaydeen ibn taymiyyah.
So two people would be called a sheikh
the sheikh Who are they in the madhhab
according to the mutakhireen, the other generations?
muwaffaq ibn qadamah, imam ibn qadamah and imam
ibn taymiyyah They would be called a sheikh
that sheikh the sheikh and who would be
called sheikh al-islam the two people also
Sheikh al-islam would be the two people
imam ibn qadamah and imam ibn taymiyyah So
he says the sheikh meaning here taqaydeen ibn
taymiyyah Said legal rulings are based on the
intention of people even when expressed through garbled
speech garbled speech this includes instances such as
saying I swear by Oksimu billah Oksimu billah
So and it should be Oksimu billahi Okay,
but if he says Oksimu billah Oksimu billah
It's not even hard to say it, but
people can make all kinds of mistakes Oksimu
billah So he says regardless of whether the
tashkeel or vowel markings at the end of
the word is with a dhamma the The
vowel sound for the used in the nominative
case and the fatha the vowel sound Used
in the accusative case So moreover anyone who
seeks to impose he says imam taqaydeen Moreover
anyone who seeks to impose a single linguistic
standard on all people according to the custom
of a particular group Aims for what is
rationally impossible and legally invalid then imam al
-hajjawi says Wa huwa kama qal and it
is as he said it is as he
said so he agrees on imam taqaydeen here
Sometimes they mention the positions of imam taqaydeen
because they are wujuh in the madhhab Not
because they are the madhhab.
So sometimes they mentioned the positions of imam
taqaydeen who was liberal in his taqwaat Did
not restrict himself always to the dominant view
in the madhhab because it is a wajh
in the madhhab So it is a position
in the madhhab an opinion in the madhhab
not the madhhab not the opinion the dominant
opinion the chosen opinion and in the madhhab,
but sometimes they Basically and it depends it
depends on the language that's used So if
they only mention it and they don't comment
to them that's the madhhab if they mention
it as a as a himal or as
a wajh or As an opinion then it's
it's different Okay, so Therefore garbled speech like
whatever it is that you say we will
not judge you by You know by the
meaning because like grammatical mistakes can change the
meaning dramatically drastically But we will judge you
by your intent you should be judged by
your intent not by the apparent meaning of
the exact words you said Then among the
maxims connected to these rulings is the 125th
maxim from al-qawa'id of Ibn Rajab
Imam Ibn Rajab, Rahimahullah said an-niyyah tu
'ammim al-khaas wa tukhassisu al-AAam bi
ghayri khilafin fihima wa hal tuqayyidu al-mutlaq
so this is another way of Crafting the
wording for the qawa'id, so he says
an-niyyah tu'ammim al-khaas wa tukhassisu
al-AAam min ghayri khilafin fihima without any
dispute regarding either one, you know min ghayri
khilafin fihima And then he says wa hal
tuqayyid al-mutlaq You see this is basically
very clever of him and this is how
you craft Craft the maxim based on the
madhhab.
So he says the intention generalizes the specific
and Specifies the general without any dispute regarding
both, you know both Qawa'id, wa hal
tuqayyid al-mutlaq does it so he puts
it in the form of a question Does
it also?
restrict the unqualified and Then so then he
was saying here what there is a disagreement
in the madhhab Does it restrict the unqualified
he wants to say the first two are
by agreement in the madhhab This is a
matter of disagreement in the in the madhhab.
So Now he will give you examples and
he will explain to you the difference between
them You know, what is the khassas al
-AAam tu'ayyin al-khas?
Animals are AAam and Humans are khas Specific
out of animals.
So this is animals and Humans are us
Animals humans humans are part of the enemy
But taqiyyid al-mutlaq when you're restricted or
qualified It is not it is not a
number of things that you're excluding some from
them It is one thing that you're qualifying
by a quality That will make that thing
applicable to So when you say tahrir al
-raqaba, you know emancipating Emancipating a slave and
then you say raqaba mu'mina Believing slave that
is restricting the unqualified if you say tahrir
al-raqaba Emancipating a slave and you stop
then it applies to any slave, but we're
talking about raqaba here We're talking about you
know, you need to emancipate one slave as
a kaffara Exhibition so it's one slave But
then when you mention raqaba mu'mina, you have
restricted you have qualified this So now I
can't go out and emancipate any slave I
will have to emancipate a believing slave that
is restricting the qualified or taqiyyid al-mutlaq
Versus you know taqsis al-AAam, which is
specify the general.
It is a large pool of Reference and
you are excluding some of them Since all
mayta is haram except al-samak wal jarad,
al-hut wal jarad, all maytat deceased or
dead animals are All dead animals are haram
except fish and locusts.
So what is this?
Taqsis al-AAam Okay, that's specifying from the
general so generalizing the specific if someone swears
not to drink water Wallahi, I will not
drink your water.
I'm not saying this with you know hikayah
Quotation wallahi I will not drink your water
and then you come back and that happens
more, you know So someone he or she
Says wallahi, I will not drink your water
and then you come back later and you
find them having dinner with them Or basically
whatever the did they breach their oath?
If they did not drink water they breached
their oath Because You know wallahi I will
not drink your water what did they intend
by this They they intended I would not
accept any favors from you I mean If
that's what the intended anyway, if they just
intended water just for water.
I mean that would be weird but But
if the intended not accepting any favors from
them Then they breach their oath by eating
by taking eating food I will I will
not drink your water and then you come
back and eat their food So this would
be generalizing the specific so the specific is
water but you did not intend just water
You intend any favor?
So you general the naya?
Generalizes the specific no disagreement here in the
madhab your naya will generalize the specific.
Okay specifying the general So if the husband
tells his wife If you dress You're divorced
or if you wear a garment you were
divorced and then he says I meant the
red garment Does the naya specify the general
yes, it does specify the general if that's
what he really intended if that is what
he really intended the naya specifies the general
the naya specifies the general no Now it's
a little bit nuanced when we restricting the
unqualified So someone vows to give charity Someone
vows to give charity and he intends a
certain amount of money a Certain amount of
money he bows, but he the utterance Doesn't
say how much?
But when he made the utterance, he's intending
a certain amount of money Is he bound
by this Ahmed said no, he's not That's
the Imam Ahmed came out of the motherhood
Now so He says that the author of
an Mahara, which is imagine that they may
have a grandfather of you know, the famous
of Netanyahu the mud Who was a great
scholar one of the you know, the two
most prominent scholars?
In that period or in that era would
be in much than a month And the
grandfather so imagine in his commentary on an
Hedaya Argued that it is binding Argued that
it is binding now Ahmad the Imam Ahmed
and this happens in all the method So
Imam Ahmed is saying not binding and then
comes a hum buddy and says it's binding
So imagine the then we'd say Ahmed also
Ruled that if someone vows to fast or
pray and internally intends more than the literal
wording entails They are bound by their intention.
So if you vow to pray, you know
Yeah, I'm elated and you intend, you know
36 rakahs You're bound by this Ahmed also
said that so in match the here would
say well So I have two positions of
Ahmed that you know I have to reconcile
between them and I'll have to choose based
on Much principles.
I would have to choose.
I am choosing his position where he said
you're bound by your intention so if you
intended to Give charity so Ahmed and and
Ahmed is a human being So Ahmed would
change his mind because he grows in knowledge
Understanding, you know and and so on so
Ahmed was not born infallible Nobody was you
know, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was
the only infallible one so Ahmed could change
his mind so Ahmed said if you say
if you make a vow to give charity
and You intend a specific amount you're not
bound by this Ahmed also said if you
pray if you vow to pray like a
number of rakahs Assert and he intend a
certain number of rakahs You're bound first not
bound second bound So imagine the minute Emma
says I will choose that it is binding.
It is binding.
So the intention here will qualify the unqualified
So because I'm qualified means what if you
say I'll give charity I've you know I
swerve to give charity then any charity will
suffice But if you intend a specific amount
only the specific amount will suffice if you
say I will Pray, I'm a light To
I vow to pray.
I'm a light tonight.
I vow to pray.
I'm a light every night Don't do this
yourself.
Just you know Start you know slower So
but I vow to pray.
I'm a light every night and then you
intend in your mind Whatever 20 rakahs You're
bound by you're you are bound by the
Unqualified sleep, but if you didn't intend anything
do what I cause would suffice.
Yes, we're our cause would suffice Now So
this is how they they would handle the
statements of the Imams Can and try to
reconcile between different Positions and so on.
So the same applies here similarly Okay So
the author of al-kafi which is al
-muwaffaq ibn qadama Also said if someone who
swears to eat meat or fruit drink water
speak to a man Or enter a house
intending specific times items The oath applies only
to what they intended There is no disagreement
on this point and I will explain why
there is no disagreement on this point And
there is some disagreement on the first point
So ebony Rajab then will explain we will
tell you So why are you guys making
a distinction between you know?
Specifying the general Generalizing the specific and you
say that there is no disagreement here, but
you have all this disagreement over Restricting the
unqualified.
What is the difference?
I see that they are the same thing
if the Naya can specify the general and
generalize the specific it should Restricted on qualified.
So Ibn Rajab explains here He says that
this agreementary emerged regarding restricting the unqualified Because
the Naya here adds to the meaning of
the words adds something External to the meaning
of the words, but when we talk about
specifying the general the Naya is not adding
something External to the meaning of the words.
So he says specifying the general reduces its
scope to part of its meaning reduces its
scope human beings animals You know, so when
Specifying the general so if you intend the
human if you say hi, I won and
you intend the human beings you are basically
Reducing the scope of the word to part
of the meaning to part of its meaning
Right because part of its mean, you know
You know animals in would include human beings
so you're reducing the scope of the word
to part of its meaning However, he says
on the other hand Restricting the unqualified entails
adding to its meaning.
So You're adding something foreign to the word
when you say the Haria, but the Haria
emancipating a slave okay, and You intend internally
a Believing slave We're not talking about the
rulings in the Quran now, we're not we're
talking about you vowing to you know So
you intend internally a believing slave?
Are you that is adding a?
Meaning to the word that is not intrinsic
to the word Okay, okay anyone confused like
raise your hand if you're confused, okay Okay,
so Human beings and animals Okay human beings
are part of the animal can when I
say an Animal and I intend a human
being I am or when I say The
garments and I intended the red garment I
Am NOT adding to the meaning of the
word.
I'm only reducing the scope of in my
Masada or what what the word applies to
So the word applies to all the garments
that she has in her closet.
I Am Intending the red one so I
am NOT adding anything to By my intending
the red one, I'm just reducing the scope
of The reference But when it comes to
when it comes to the Mina, I vow
I vow to Emancipate a slave and then
intend that it would be Believing slave inside
me how my basically Would I be here
if I intend any slave if I emancipate
any slave That is where the disagreement comes
that is where the disagreement comes if I
Intend a certain amount of charity Like I
say Well, I hear a lot of sadhana
by Allah I will give charity and intend
a certain amount of charity intend $1,000
am I bound by that or any charity
would suffice?
Yes Yes You
Well, if you say charity then like like
five cents would be charity I guess You
Yes, that is what that is coming and
that's that is coming so when I say
when when we say Tahrir Makkah, but and
then The quality of a man to the
rock about that.
It would be a believing the wording itself
Did the wording refer to belief or no
belief or no whatsoever?
so The Naya does not have the power
According to the position that does not restrict
to the qualified By the Naya the Naya
does not have the power to add meaning
to the words that was unspoken and Keep
in mind you will understand this better within
the context of vows and oaths and Falafel
and things of that nature why?
because to intend to intend You know charity
or to in it to vow internally without
any utterance Are you bound by your internal
vow?
No so vows Falafel intended to divorce your
wife.
Are you is she divorced?
Until you utter it.
Okay, that is why the Naya is too
weak here Because the default is that intention
here is Inconsequential So I vowed to give
charity wallahi I will give charity and then
Internally, I intended $1,000 my bound by
that No, because I didn't speak it and
vows need to be spoken Need to be
spoken to become binding.
So the intent is too weak here According
to Imam Ahmed not according to the you
know, Sahaba Muharra You know imagine the minute
a man so on so Sahaba Muharra will
say you're bound But Imam Ahmed said you're
not bound Okay, but why did they say
when it comes to times and items and
things of that nature It's there is no
disagreement Let's read this So it must be
noted here that these intentions must be accompanied
by action for legal rulings to apply I
vow does not take effect by mere intention
nor does divorce if someone vows to give
charity It suffices to the Nate any amount
and specifying an amount through intention alone requires
a verbal Isation to become binding.
However, as It stated in Kashaf Al-Qanaa
If someone swears to perform an act within
a specific time frame Such as a day
month or year the oath is restricted by
the intended time So if someone swears to
perform a certain act and intends within a
certain time It will be qualified for sure
by this intention It would be restricted by
the intended time because intention redirects the apparent
meaning of the wording To something different in
this instance.
There is no creation of a new obligation
No creation of a new obligation.
You're just redirecting the intention from Just intending
to to do this particular thing at any
time to within a certain time frame You're
redirecting it.
You're not initiating a new obligation You're not
initiating the Harirak about Minna You're initiating a
new obligation.
The new obligation is that it would be
a believing Slave not anyone.
Yes You
If you write it down With the intent
that you will It will be the writing
in general writing in general We will come
to the next Kaida, which is which is
about Al-Kitab Al-Khitab well this means
the written communication is like spoken Communication, but
it is not always like this Because it
will It is treated as a kenaya And
it would be in need of an intention
Intention that is in divorce but in oath
It's even weaker than divorce You need the
verbalization You need the verbalization You When
you when you do a pleasure for an
organization you're like you I don't wanna You
By your best You're not bound but by
your best like, you know, like you shouldn't
be Pledging if you're not I mean it
is unbecoming of a believer and all of
that stuff But the promise is not binding
a pledge is not binding Okay, for example,
let's just finish this so that we can
end Ibn Rajab also gave examples of using
intention to create exceptions within explicit statements For
example, if someone says you are divorced three
times But internally excludes one does the triple
divorce apply in reality?
There are two opinions it doesn't apply as
stated by Abul Khattab and Al-Hulwani and
It does apply.
So you say, you know, you're divorced in
Titanic, you're divorced three times And then you
intend internally except one which means three minus
one two, so Does does the three divorce?
Do the three divorces count?
Yes, they count according to the Stronger position
in the madhhab.
They do count why?
because the number the number Has power if
you say To your to your four wives
I can't look at you Because I'm afraid
So if you say to your four wives
all four of you are divorced Except one
Does that exclusion count According to the madhhab
no Except one internally you said except one
internally.
So you said to your your your wives
all four of you are divorced Huh, and
Then internally you said except one, but you
didn't say internally ended intended except one All
the four of them are divorced according to
the madhhab.
Why because these are numbers numbers have strength
Why are you saying four if you say
to your wives all of you are divorced
and you internally intend except one Well Your
your exclusion here is valid.
Yes, it is valid.
What is the difference?
Okay, the difference is the first time he
said four So why are you mentioning four?
but but All you could still exclude from
all By why would you exclude from four?
Because four is a number like why are
you mentioning four why you mentioned the number?
Like does it make any sense to say,
you know four Except one.
Why don't you?
What what's what is?
But but it doesn't have it the the
the the the words That all does not
have the same power as four This is
good, you know It applies to all men
this is So it applies to all You
could exclude from you know, the the old
type thing You could exclude from all but
like excluding from four Would not make sense
So anyway, so that is so Can you
exclude then?
Okay, can you exclude can you make an
exception uh with the naya yes In certain
cases, but no if a number is mentioned
No here Here Yes here If a number
is not mentioned, yes, you could basically make
an exception with the intention no, if um,
the number is mentioned because the number would
make it nonsensical to say All four of
you are divorced It would be nonsense to
say four And then to exclude one so
the naya In the math hub if you
want to because this is a controversy that
Most of the time it will restrict the
qualified Because if we're talking about the time
frame it, you know or specific items that
you intended it restricts the qualified but The
controversy applies to when you make a vow
you make an oath and you intend with
within you a certain quality or amount uh
That you did not express.
Are you bound by it or not bound
by it?
That's where the controversy is and imam ahmad
was asked about someone who Vowed to give
charity and intended a specific amount and he
said not bound by it Asked about someone
who you know vowed to pray and intended,
you know, like a certain number of rakahs
or something and he said bound by and
uh, I want you just to remember that
In the math hub in general if you
want to come out with one thing You
know the naya specifies the general generalizes the
specific And qualifies the unqualified restricts the unqualified
in general, you know and then We will
end here.
Unfortunately, we will not be able to cover
The interpretation of statements changes based on the
context in which they are made the interpretation
of statements Changes based on the context in
which they are made We will defer this
next time inshallah Next time we will take
it Which is written communication is like spoken,
uh communication and that will be the last
subsidiary Under