Hatem al-Haj – QWD021 Coherence of Sharia 016 Exceptions Under Maxim 1
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of considering intentions and moral integrity in building structures, while also emphasizing the need for intentions and moral integrity in building structures. They stress the need for intentions and the need for moral integrity in building structures, as it is crucial for actions to be considered. The speakers also discuss the use of certain words in divorce cases and the importance of considering the actual reality when evaluating actions and behavior. They stress the need for explicit statement in divorce cases and the importance of not being liable for a legal action. The speakers also touch on the importance of maintaining neutrality in the situation of a woman who is in a waiting period and is not allowed to go back to work.
AI: Summary ©
Bismillah, alhamdulillah, wa salamu ala rasool Allah, wa
ala alihi wa sahbihi wa ala walathumma amma
abad, to proceed.
So today, inshallah, we will finish al-amur
bi maqasadiha.
Matters are judged by their intentions.
Matters are judged by their intentions.
Inshallah, we will finish this qa'ida today.
And if you remember, you know, the book
is four sections.
One is al-muqaddimat, introductions.
The second is the comprehensive major legal maxims.
The third is the minor, I guess, legal
maxims.
Not the major ones, not the five, but
the other ones that are major in their
own right.
But we call them minor in relation to
the five major legal maxims.
And then the last section will be about
da'abat al-fiqhiyya, the regulators.
Regulators or da'abat would be limited in
application, much more limited in application.
They may regulate the rulings within one chapter
or one particular subject matter.
So they are much, much more limited in
application.
So we're in the second section of the
book.
We're in, you know, the most important and
the largest section in the book, which is
the major legal maxims.
The most important of them and the largest
is al-amur bi maqasadiha.
And that is what we will be finishing,
inshallah.
Therefore, I am hopeful that the following ones,
the four other legal maxims, will not take
as long as al-amur bi maqasadiha.
They are still huge, you know, al-yaqeen
la'zul bishak, la darar wa la darar.
You know, these are huge, but still not
as big as al-amur bi maqasadiha.
So let us finish al-amur bi maqasadiha,
inshallah, today.
And even if we have to stay like
five or ten minutes over the time, then
that should be okay, inshallah.
So today we'll talk about exceptions from the
qa'ida.
Because, you know, remember we've talked about the
concept of exceptions before, exceptions from the qa
'ida.
And that's the difference between a faqih and
a non-faqih.
A faqih and a non-faqih is only
concerned about what is in front of their
eyes, you know.
And they may be only concerned about one
particular hadith or one particular ayah, or even
one particular qa'ida.
And not keeping in consideration the rest, the
rest of the ayat, the rest of the
hadith, the rest of the qa'id.
So al-istithni'at are not istithni'at.
They are exceptions, not in the sense that
al-qa'ida is not muttarida.
Muttarida, you know, means consistent.
The qa'ida is consistent.
The qa'ida is muttarida.
However, the istithni'at are there because of
some other overriding proof or overriding cause.
You know, cause of departure from the qa
'ida.
Whether it is another qa'ida or whether
it's text of revelation.
Whether it's text of revelation or whether it's
another qa'ida.
So, let's start with the istithni'at or
the exceptions.
Mustithni'at, istithni'at, exceptions.
Imam Suyuti rahimahullah said the intention of the
speaker, Imam Suyuti al-Shafi'i, he says
the intention of the speaker governs the meaning
of the speech.
The intention of the speaker governs the meaning
of the speech.
Do we agree with this?
Yes, we do agree with this in the
madhhab except for the oppressed, the wronged.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I should have finished his statement.
So, the intent of the speaker governs the
meaning of the speech except in one case,
before the judge.
So, this is in agreement with the madhhab
except that even before the judge, we consider
the intent of the speaker in one scenario.
If the speaker is oppressed, if the judge
is tyrannical or the system or whatever, and
the speaker believes clearly and with certainty that
they are oppressed, in this case, they can
take the oath and use equivocation or whatever
it is to not subject themselves to oppression.
So, it's very tricky and certainly people who
will abuse this, you will say that people
will abuse this, and you will say that
I'm actually a little bit more comfortable with
the Shafi'i principle because who guarantees that
people will not abuse this?
Well, abusive people will abuse anything.
Abusive people will find a way to, you
know, do their own wickedness and mischief.
So, these qa'id are for people who
are sincere and for people who have moral
integrity.
People who are not sincere, people who lack
moral integrity, they don't need a qa'id
basically to get off the hook.
They are not waiting for your taq'id
or qa'id to refrain from their injustice.
Okay, so then previously we discussed what actions
do not require intention.
So, one of the mustathnayat that we may
discuss is what if you build a masjid?
We said maqasadallahu ta'ala riyatal laafiz.
We said al-umur bi maqasadiha.
The matters are by their intentions.
What if you build a structure looking like
a masjid and allow people to come in
and pray and then say I did not
basically make a waqf of this building.
This building is still private property.
You know, after a couple of weeks, after
a couple of months, a couple of years,
you're saying this building is a private property.
Don't think that this scenario is far-fetched.
This scenario does happen in reality.
What are we going to do?
You actually have never said that this building
is waqf.
You just built a building that looks, resembles
the structure of masjid and allowed people to
come in.
Or you basically raf'at al-adhan, you
know, called the adhan.
Or you appointed someone to lead the people
in prayer.
Or you led the people in prayer.
You've done all of that, but you really
didn't intend or you are claiming that you
did not intend to make this property a
masjid.
We will disregard your intention.
Why are we disregarding your intention?
Because the intention, as Imam Ahmad says, is
about that which is unclear, not that which
is clear.
And all of your actions are pointing to,
you know, one direction.
So we will consider these actions stronger than
your intention.
And for an added factor as well, so
this is one cause that the actions are
too strong to be neglected, too strong to
be overlooked.
You know, you're building a structure that looks
like a masjid.
You're allowing people to come in and pray.
You're basically calling the adhan, appointing an imam,
and then you're saying that this is not
a masjid.
It's private property.
We will not take it because your actions
are too strong to be overlooked.
And because of the sanctity of the masjid,
the sanctity of the masjid.
Now, conversely, if someone intends marriage, but this
is according to the madhhab, so if someone
intends marriage and uses whatever, you know, terms,
other than the proper terms of marriage, the
proper terms of marriage, we will disregard their
intention.
In the madhhab, we've said before that Imam
Taqiyyid ibn Taymiyyah said the marriage is valid
regardless of how they communicated their intent.
The marriage is valid if the intended marriage,
regardless of how they communicated their intent, if
that communication is customary.
And then he says that the context also
matters.
So if people invite family members and have
a celebration and then exchange whatever words they
come up with for marriage, but in the
madhhab, going back to the madhhab, just train
yourself to go back and forth.
And this gives you a little bit more
plasticity in your brain because sometimes, you know,
people are just too rigid.
And that's the beauty of al-qa'id.
You look at different things at the same
time from different angles.
But going back to the madhhab, they are
saying that this is a sacred contract and
this contract lies somewhere between ibadat and mu'malat.
This is a different contract.
It lies somewhere between ibadat and mu'malat.
Therefore, the words of this contract are intended
for themselves.
The words for this, yes, maybe not as
much as salah and recitation of the Qur
'an, but they're still intended for themselves.
So how are we going to separate them
from salah and recitation of Qur'an?
Al-'ajiz, the one who's unable, we will let
him say whatever he can say.
The one who's unable to say zawajdu and
kahtu, we will let him say it in
their own language, in whichever way they're able
to say it.
And they don't need to learn it.
They don't have to learn Arabic so that
they can learn it versus the salah, you
know.
So somewhere between mu'malat, you know, where you
could use any words, you know, any language,
any terms, and ibadat where, you know, the
wordings are very strict.
So that's the point of the matah anyway
in requiring certain wordings for marriage.
Then, so which one is consistent with the
qa'ida and which one is not consistent
with the qa'ida here?
So which position?
The position of Imam Taqi al-Din is
consistent with the qa'ida because he's saying
still, whichever word, and the madhhab's position would
be an istithna.
And the rationale behind the istithna is marriage
is not like any other transactions.
So another exception includes divorce, marriage and emancipation
by jest.
So have we gone over this last time,
talaq al-hazl, you know, divorce and jest?
And we said we will count it against
them and that's the vast majority of scholars,
the very vast majority of scholars will count
talaq al-hazl, they will count the divorce
and jest because as we have said before,
versus sales, and we will not go back
and explain everything, but we said that when
it comes to these transactions, there are three
different views.
Some people say everything from the hazl, from
the one joking is invalid, you know, doesn't
count.
Some say everything valid counts.
Some say we will, and that's hambalis, we
will say the financial stuff is invalid, you
know, sales and financial contracts, invalid.
The family stuff, you know, marital contracts and
things of that nature, we will count it
against them because they should not be jesting
about those issues.
They should not be jesting about those issues.
So like we say, you should not be
jesting about disbelief, making jokes about God, or,
you know, his prophets and messengers and things
like that.
You should not be jesting about marriage and
divorce and these sacred contracts.
Then, so another one that may be an
exception, we said before, if someone says my
four wives are divorced, my four wives are
divorced, versus my wives are all divorced, but
he says four, can he then say I
excluded one of them?
No, he cannot because four is too powerful
for exclusions by niyyah.
Four is too powerful for exclusions by niyyah.
And if someone says the words of Zihar,
or says, you know, not the words of
Zihar, you're forbidden to me, for instance.
Then he says I did not mean Zihar
by this, but this is not as clear
cut because he's not saying to her, you're
forbidden to me like my mother or the
back of my mother, but he's saying, you
know, you're forbidden to me.
Now, if he comes and says, I didn't
intend Zihar, I intended, you know, talaq or
whatever, I mean, et cetera.
Would we basically accept that from him?
Two positions in the madhhab, the later scholars
said, no, we will not accept.
But, you know, it's very controversial, you know,
so this is not comparative fiqh, you know,
that's, this is Hanbali stuff.
So, but it's very controversial.
Anyway, finally, requiring an explicit and the beauty
of the Hanbali madhhab also is that you
will always have comparative fiqh because there are
always disagreements, you know, like over every issue,
even this issue, there are two positions within
the madhhab.
So, finally, requiring an explicit statement for divorce,
vows, or waqf, requiring an explicit statement for
divorce, vows, and waqf, is that an exception?
Don't we say, but why are we requiring
certain words in divorce, vows, and waqf?
In waqf, it would be certain words or
actions, but in divorce and in vows, it
would be words.
What if you vow internally to do something?
Is that a binding vow?
No, until you speak of it.
Why is this?
Because intention alone is not sufficient.
You know, so intention is part of the
pillars and conditions of the prayer or not.
But what if you just intend to pray?
We need your rakuh and, you know, fatha
and stuff.
So, that's the same concept.
We also need you to speak of these
words for them to be binding.
Words of divorce, words of waqf, words of
vows.
So, two subsidiary maxims serve as exceptions to
the major qaeda.
I want you to remember these two subsidiary
maxims.
The first one is, العبرة في المعاملات بما
في نفس الأمر.
Which means consideration in transactions is given to
the actual reality.
To reality.
So, when we say الأمور بمقصدها, we have
another concern also.
Reality.
We do not want to be unreal.
We want to respect the truth, the reality,
the external reality.
Because, so, two types of...
I'm not, you know...
So, hopefully this is not haram.
But this is a head of a person,
I guess.
So, and this is the brain.
It's so miserable when you have to explain
your drawing.
But this is a person.
This is the head of the person.
And, okay, this makes it clear.
And then the outside reality.
So, we have a reality here, a reality
here.
This is called mental.
This is your mental perception.
And this is the actual reality.
It's called external reality.
الأمر كما هو في الخارج.
In the external reality.
So, different expressions here.
العبرة في الوقود بما في نفس الأمر.
Which is, consideration is given to reality in
contrast.
And, الإمام ابن القيم رحمه الله combined two
قواعد.
العبرة في المقصد والمعاني.
والعبرة بما في نفس الأمر.
Consideration is given to intents and meanings.
Consideration is given to the actual reality.
He combined them in one قاعدة.
Where he said, الاعتبار في العقود والأفعال بحقائقها
ومقاصدها.
بحقائقها ومقاصدها.
دون ظواهر الفضيحة وفعاليها.
So, the consideration and contracts and actions is
for their realities and intents.
Realities and intents.
So, he's trying to combine between this and
this.
Intent and reality in the same قاعدة.
Rulings concerning validity, invalidity, and effects of transactions
will be based on القاعدة العبرة بما في
نفس الأمر.
You know, consideration is given to the actual
reality as it exists in itself, outside, externally,
outside your mind.
Externally.
So, the meaning of this قاعدة is that
legal rulings concerning the validity and invalidity and
the different effects of transactions will be dependent
on the actual reality.
Imam Ibn Rajab, may Allah have mercy on
him, in his 65th قاعدة said, من تصرف
في شيء يظن أنه لا يملكه فتبين أنه
كان يملكه قال وفيها الخلاف.
If someone transacts with an object they believe
they don't own, but it later becomes evident
they do.
There is a disagreement on the outcome.
So, examples.
Because examples make things clear.
So, you've sold your dad's property.
You've sold your dad's property without taking their
permission.
I mean, hopefully, you know, God forbid.
And then you discovered your dad had died
before the sale finalized.
If you sell your dad's property without taking
their permission, the sale is valid or invalid?
It's invalid.
It's باية الفضولي, interloper.
Basically, without permission.
Certainly, in the comparative world, it could be
valid based, you know, dependent on your approval,
dependent on the person's approval.
But then, what if your father had died
and you're the sole heir?
So, do we consider your intent at the
time that you're acting as a فضولي, interloper,
without permission?
Or do we consider the external reality, the
actual reality?
You were the owner of this property.
We will consider the actual reality.
We will consider the actual reality.
Also, for an agent, an agent does not
need to be aware that he is an
agent.
So, the same thing.
You know, someone acts as a فضولي and
turns out that he has agency, that the
person had given them power of attorney, agency,
and so on.
Will we basically consider the fact that you
have acted as a فضولي, interloper, without permission?
Or that you were authorized at the time?
We will consider the external reality, the actual
reality.
You were authorized.
If a man divorces his wife, for instance,
if a man divorces a woman thinking she
is a stranger, she turns out to be
his wife.
How could these things happen?
They happen.
So, if someone divorces a stranger thinking she
is not his wife, she turns out to
actually be his wife.
Are we considering his intent that he did
not actually mean to divorce?
He was just jesting, joking, divorcing a strange
woman.
Or do we consider the external reality that
this is actually his wife?
And he said to that woman, who is
actually his wife, you're divorced.
So, we will count it against them.
It's valid.
Validity of an action, also, in the قاءة
قولي النهى, it says, and if someone absolves
their debtor from a debt, what it says,
one absolves their debtor from a debt, thinking
there is no debt.
Turns out there is actually a debt.
Are they absolved?
So, that applies to the قاءة قولي النهى.
They are absolved.
Because in reality, there was a debt.
So, it becomes clear from the meaning of
the principle and its exceptions that we have
not, like in the Madhhab, prioritized wordings and
forms over intent.
Rather, we have given precedence to the external
reality over assumptions in the mind.
Thus, it constitutes an exception to the overarching
maxim in some respect, but not in every
respect.
So, this is this العبرة بما في نفس
الامر You know, consideration is given to the
actual reality.
Is it prioritizing or favoring words and forms?
Or over intents and meanings?
No.
So, what is the قاءة قولي النهى about?
The قاءة قولي النهى is about favoring العبرة
بالمقصد والمعاني لبل الفضو المباني That قاءة قولي
النهى is about what?
Favoring intents and meanings over words and forms.
So, when we say العبرة بما في نفس
الامر which is consideration is given to the
actual reality What are we doing here?
Are we violating the قاءة قولي النهى?
No, we are not violating the قاءة قولي
النهى.
We are showing respect to the truth which
most people fail to do.
But that's it.
We are showing respect to reality, to the
truth.
Capital R, capital T.
Then another قاءة قولي النهى that is considered
to be an exception from this قاءة you
know, the major قاءة الأمور بما قصدها would
be قاءة من تعجل شيئا قبل أوانه عقب
بحرمانه Whoever hastens to obtain something before its
due time is punished by being deprived of
it.
Is punished by being deprived of it.
So, Sheikh Saadi, may Allah have mercy on
him in his seventeenth قاءة this is the
seventeenth قاءة of Sheikh Saadi's but Imam Ibn
Rajab said من تعجل حقه أو ما أبيح
له قبل وقته على وجه المحرم عقب بحرمانه
Whoever hastens their right or something permitted before
its due time in an unlawful manner is
punished by being deprived of it.
This is under the قاعدة of من أتى
بسبب يفيد الملكة أو الحلة أو يسقط الواجبات
على وجه المحرم وكان مما تدعو النفوس إليه
ألغي ذلك السبب وصار وجوده كالعدم ولم يترتب
عليه أحكامه So Imam Ibn Rajab in his
phrasing of his قواعد he did not really
worry about rhymes and he did not worry
about brevity so that is why people don't
quote him that often because he worried about
the detail like I want to basically give
you the explanation So this is a very
long sentence to be considered a قاعدة, you
know, to be quoted as a قاعدة it
needs to be a little bit, you know,
lighter and easier to remember But he says
if someone pursues a cause to acquire ownership,
permissibility of something or exemption from obligations in
a lawful manner, particularly when it aligns with
human desires, that cause is nullified rendered as
if nonexistent and its effect does not materialize
So there is a counterpart to this قاعدة
مَنْ تَرَكَ شَيْءًا لِلَّهِ عَوَضَهُ اللَّهُ خَيْرًا مِنْهُ
That is the mirror image of this قاعدة
which will translate into whoever forsakes something for
the sake of Allah, Allah compensate them with
something better And so some of the applications
of this قاعدة the most well-known application
most common, most well-known application for this
قاعدة is which one?
قَطْلْ أَيْنَا So I didn't hear The most
common application is قَطْلْ المُورِّس قَطْلْ المُورِّس أو
المُوصِي So killing the benefactor whether you are
getting this testator or benefactor the مُورِّس, the
one that you will inherit from So the
heir killing their benefactor or testator this is
the most common application of this قاعدة And
there is much disagreement within the mazahib about
this, you know, which killing which killing exactly
will deprive you So is it illegal killing?
Is it basically unlawful killing?
Or any killing?
So there are three different types of killing
What if you killed them because you are
the executor of death penalties you know, you
are the person hired to implement the death
penalty by the sultan and your father comes
in someone that you inherit from comes in
and there is an order to execute them
So this is not unlawful killing And then
you have accidental killing What?
How do we go back?
Here?
Okay, and then you have accidental and then
you have intentional So the hambalis would execute
this But these two, it doesn't matter You
accidentally, you intentionally killed them It doesn't matter
If you've killed them If you've killed your
benefactor even accidentally, you will not inherit from
them And why is this?
Like, what's the point here?
Because, you know, what's the How can we
be sure?
This is basically to deter people from pretending
to accidentally kill someone Because people can always,
you say Well, it was accidental I was
just trying my gun or something It was
accidental So if you kill someone whether accidentally
or intentionally or premeditated or not You will
not inherit And that is a very strong
and clear application of the qaeda Why?
Because you have basically hastened through unlawful ways
to obtaining your right in the inheritance So
you're not actually seeking something haram You're seeking
something halal But you're seeking it in a
haram way Okay, so another one We know,
for instance, that the sahaba have unanimously agreed
to give to Madr, you know, the wife
of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf to give
her a share of the inheritance of Abd
al-Rahman ibn Awf when he divorced her
during his terminal illness And we take this
to heart in the madhhab We take this
to heart to say that even after her
iddah ended, she'll still inherit You know, after
50 years, yes, she'll still inherit Unless she
had married another person or apostatized So someone
who divorces his wife in his terminal illness
we will suspect that he did this to
deprive her of inheritance And we will say,
well, if that is what you intended matters
are judged by their intentions We will reverse
this and we will say We will If
you hasten to obtaining a benefit before its
due time you will be, or if you
basically seek an unlawful cause to something lawful,
then we will disregard the cause We will
basically punish you by depriving you of the
final effect So someone who has divorced his
wife in his terminal illness and then he
dies after her iddah is over So he
divorced her in his terminal illness Her iddah
was over Then he dies a couple of
months later, a couple of years later We
will ask one question Have you gotten married
since he divorced you?
Or did you leave Islam?
If you have not gotten married, you have
not left Islam You will inherit from him
The scholars, I'm sorry, the experts are the
ones who determine which illness is a terminal
illness That would be the physicians So now,
evading the zakat payments What if you have
What's the minimum threshold for zakat?
The zakatable minimum, I call it the zakatable
minimum People call it minimum threshold The zakatable
minimum You have like 85 grams of gold
You figure out 85 grams of gold is
$4,500 I have in my checking account
$4,600 If I pay my zakat, I
will pay, let us say What?
How much would I pay?
$4,500, 2.5% Huh?
$100 something?
Well, let us say my zakatable minimum is
$4,500 And I have $44,530 in
the bank And I just donate $50 A
little before my zakat due date So when
my zakat due date arrives I have less
than the zakatable threshold Huh?
No, like the zakat, we said the zakat
will be We said zakat is $100 I
don't know something So you paid $50 And
then you don't have to pay zakat Anyway
Or you just bought like whatever Like an
iPhone for instance To just bring it down
Now this is evading zakat Are you liable
for zakat?
Yes, you are liable for zakat Because we
will not allow you to do this Now,
but there are some things that are a
little bit A little bit not as clear
So if someone extensively channels their wealth into
acquiring assets That are not subject to zakat
Like buildings Buildings will not be subject to
zakat If they are for rent Rental properties
But if you are basically a real estate
who sells and buys These for you are
trade goods They will be zakatable But if
you buy 70 different buildings And rent them
out They are not zakatable Only the rental
will become zakatable If you buy a fleet
of taxis And rent them out They are
not zakatable But if you buy four cars
only And you intend to sell them They
are zakatable Because they are trade goods in
this case So now if you extensively channel
your wealth Into non-zakatable properties Will you
be liable for zakat or not?
This is a little bit harder here It's
a little bit harder And the final position
There is a disagreement in the madhhab But
the final position of the madhhab is Where
I believe Al-Karmi Felt that Here is
Here is your Zakat due date And this
is one year One year This is the
middle of the year If before the middle
of the year You change your investment From
You know Like trade goods To real estate
Rental properties Before the middle of the year
Then You don't have to pay zakat If
you come here For instance anytime here And
you change your investments You have to pay
zakat If the switching From zakatable properties To
non-zakatable properties Happened before the middle of
the year You know You don't have to
pay zakat After the middle of the year
You have to pay zakat Because This looks
more like Asian Of zakat Then We also
have the issue of Transforming wine into vinegar
And in the madhhab We believe that Vinegar
would never be halal If it came from
wine Now There is a difference Because everybody
will say Isn't there A point In the
process of production Where fermentation takes place And
there would be alcohol During this process Of
making vinegar Doesn't fermentation happen And doesn't alcohol
get produced Yes But there is a difference
between Wine Or khamr And putting this wine
Through the process Versus having The basic ingredients
And putting them through the process To become
khal Here So If alcohol is produced At
some point here And then it goes away
And then it turns into khal Which doesn't
have alcohol This process is halal But if
you're starting with Wine And you're turning it
into khal This does not render it halal
According to us And the shafis According to
the hanafis and malikis It will be ok
You know The khal will be tahir Because
ultimately it is khal So they're Giving precedence
to what here Al-ibra bima fee nafs
al-amr You know consideration is given To
the external reality The actual reality The actual
reality is This wine vinegar Is actually vinegar
It's not alcoholic It will not get you
intoxicated But We have And certainly we don't
have this Just based on this qaeda But
the qaeda itself is based on Hadith where
the prophet Forbade the turning of wine Into
khal But if someone else did it Someone
else did it Then the hanafis and malikis
Will say Well this is now khal Anyway
There are different ways to look at The
same Ruling Or scenario Now if someone marries
a woman During her waiting period She becomes
permanently prohibited So this is consistent with the
qaeda She is in her waiting period They
couldn't You know be patient for like Three
months and they got married Before the end
of the waiting period What are we going
to do with this So there are two
different positions The position that is consistent With
the qaeda The qaeda is not the dominant
position In the madhab So what would be
the position consistent With the qaeda To say
you are permanently forbidden To each other Permanently
forbidden to each other What is the other
position We will allow you to go back
After you The woman completes two iddahs From
the first one And from the second one
Two iddahs will need to be completed And
then you are allowed To remarry Certainly you
have done something haram And all of that
stuff But we will still allow you to
remarry That ended up being the dominant position
In the madhab They will allow them to
remarry Now so if a man Unfairly restrained
his wife To compel her into asking for
khula We will count it as divorce And
we will give her the money back So
if he caused her harm Until she asked
for khula We will count it as divorce
And give her her money back Exceptions If
a creditor Exceptions from this qaeda If a
creditor kills their debtor The debt becomes due
In the stronger view Of the madhab Because
the right To the money has been established
Prior to the killing So you
borrow money from someone When is this money
due?
Let's say the money is due next year
In the madhab The money becomes due Also
upon death If he dies In the middle
The money becomes due Okay So if you
kill him Does the money become due Upon
his death Two positions in the madhab But
the dominant position In the madhab is It
does become due So the dominant position In
the madhab is Consistent with the qaeda or
not Not consistent with the qaeda What is
consistent with the qaeda Is what we will
Punish you by Not making your Debt due
Not giving you the money Keep in mind
If he kills him he will be killed
Or he has to pay the debt It's
a bigger deal than this But we're talking
just about the debt Does the You know
Does the debt become due or not Does
the debt become due or not And in
the madhab The debt does become due So
what is it Because every time they depart
From the qaeda They must be departing for
A reason What is it The right to
the money You have always had the right
to this money It's your money And you
can even Change The due date Ask for
your money earlier It's your money So it's
a right that has been established Before death
So That is what we will observe More
than the fact That you have hastened To
something In an unlawful manner Because this has
been your established Right all the time Prior
to the death Yes The creditor
Killed the debtor I gave you money I
gave you Ten thousand dollars And I told
you next year Pay me back next year
So And I killed you Sorry And Like
in two months for instance Do I collect
Do I collect Or my heirs Because I
will be killed also Perhaps Unless your heirs
decide to take the day But You know
Are my heirs entitled to the debt To
Are they entitled In the math They are
entitled My heirs Or if your heirs Decided
to take the day I am Because I
will live But I am entitled To take
the Receive it And then So This is
the last application We are actually finishing in
a very good time This is the last
application that we have Here I was asked
about A nursing woman Who experienced a delay
in menstruation Who experienced a delay in menstruation
So a woman Got a divorce And her
cycles Are not reliable And she doesn't want
to wait Nine months Or three cycles She
took a medicine To regulate her cycle Or
to bring Menstruation earlier Now She got through
three Menstrual periods Through this medicine Is her
waiting Period over Yes it's over You may
say This is not consistent with the No
it's not So what is it that she
did She took a medicine That's And Here
The issue is The external reality The actual
reality Is too strong To overlook Because If
she gets Three periods Customary periods We can't
tell her This period is inconsequential We can't
tell her Go ahead and pray This blood
is inconsequential This is her period We can't
tell her You're not hot Therefore The actual
reality Takes precedence here The actual reality Is
that through this medicine She got three customary
Periods What is wrong She's You know Her
edda now is over During this time when
she's getting her period She will not be
praying She will not be asked to make
up for the prayers She will deal with
it just like periods Because they are In
reality Periods Okay So that brings us to
the End of the applications Of this And
I'm hopeful that you Go back and do
Like you know Exercises like Review the Do
some Exercises to train Your mind Because the
You know a lot of people Are unidimensional
And the Life is complicated There are so
many things Need to be considered You know
passing judgment Is not easy And you should
not be doing this Based on whims Or
based on You know Thoughtless Impulses and stuff
Of that nature The You know Their lives
trying to learn these things And trying To
basically Have mastery Have like a fiqh mind
And mastery So Like a youtuber or Like
a twitter person Or something Experts It's just
You know The religion should never be left
To Unqualified People To ruin it So try
to really invest In learning, try to Appreciate
fiqh Try to appreciate the tradition And sciences
The complementary sciences And discover the beauty In
the religion and the coherence Of the religion
And the sensibility also Of the religion because
many People, many of those Unidimensional people It
depends on their Inclinations So some of them
could be extreme to the right, extreme to
the left And they are able Always to
use You will never be You will never
be Sort of You will never Find
Shortage In If You and your Are uneducated
Because you could use Anything as a You
could quote Anything, use anything As a So
you will never basically Find the shortage of
Everybody has Everybody justifies Their Ridiculous assertions By
They believe they are And if your audience
Are as uneducated As you are, you may
have A very large audience That is cheering
you on And that is Basically marveling at
Your Your Capacity and your Your So it
is important that We revive the interest In
the tradition And appreciate Its beauty and its
coherence And not allowed To be hijacked by
anyone Who is unqualified for the job Regardless
of their Regardless of their intents And regardless
of whether they agree With you or disagree
Because that is what is important Because often
times You would tolerate all of this If
they end up agreeing with you You could
tolerate all of this You could tolerate the
fact that they are unqualified You could tolerate
the fact that they are making Ridiculous, you
know Use of the Finally, if the assertion
Is similar to your assertion You will ignore
How they got there We should not be
doing this You know Even if you arrive
at a correct conclusion Through This is I
don't care if you arrived At a correct
conclusion or not But the process itself Has
to be correct Because if you reach a
correct conclusion This time Through a bad process
Next time you could reach A catastrophic conclusion
Because your process is a bad process And
that's it And we will see each other
next time We will see each other next
time And until Until 9,
10 Inshallah