Hatem al-Haj – QWD024 Coherence of Sharia – Subsidiary Maxims Under Maxim 2

AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss various topics related to the theory of generality, including the maxim of the Qiosha Qiosha (Qiosha Qiosha), the theory of generality, and the importance of consistency in Islam. They explore various types of Al-Istishaab, including Pres formation of generality, continuity of generality, and the importance of consistency in Islam. The speakers emphasize the need for universal acceptance of claims made by a buyer and seller, finding proof of a claim and verifying proof of incidental events. They also discuss the default approach for acts of worship, which is the default for hair falling, but the default is also for hair falling.
AI: Summary ©
Bismillah Alhamdulilah wa salamu ala rasoola ala alihi
wa sahbihi wa man ala ahsan wa amma
ala abad.
To proceed.
So today, inshallah, we will start the alqa
'ad al-fariyyah, the subsidiary maxims of al
yaqeen la yazul bis shak.
We're now doing al yaqeen la yazul bis
shak.
This is the second major Qa'idah
and we're done with the definition and we're
done with the benefits and some guidelines and
remember the most important thing to get down
here is the difference between Yaqeen and Zun
and Wahm and Shaq and the sort of
the subtle distinctions between them because they are
treated differently.
So Wahm is the 1 to 49 percent,
Zun is the 51 to 99 percent, Shaq
is the 50 percent, Yaqeen is 0 percent
and 100 percent, 0 percent and 100 percent.
That's positive and negative.
And last time we spent the whole session
on what?
Ghalabatul Zun.
Ghalabatul Zun is predominant assumption.
It is called the Zun in the books
of Fiqh or Ghalabatul Zun.
Ghalabatul Zun predominant assumption, Zun is assumption but
it means predominant it means more than 50
percent.
However, as we have said before, sometimes you
have to be sensitive to context because sometimes
the scholars use Shaq to refer to anything
other than Yaqeen, to refer to anything other
than Yaqeen, other than certainty.
So in this case Shaq would include Zun
because it's just short of certainty.
But when they distinguish between them, between Shaq
and Zun, this is what they're talking about.
And we will come to some applications here
where we see how it is very consequential,
that distinction between Shaq and Zun, between the
50 percent and the 51 percent.
The distinction between the 50 and the 51
percent will be quite consequential as we will
see here in the applications.
So today we will start the Al-Qa
'ad Al-Fara'iyah wa-t-tadbiqat subsidiary
maxims and applications.
So first Al-Qa'ad Al-Fara'iyah,
the first thing that I wanted to say
is you should be expecting or you will
not be surprised when I tell you that
most of Al-Qa'ad Al-Fara'iyah,
the subsidiary maxims of Al-Yaqeen La Yazul
Bish-Shaq started by Al-Asl.
Al-Asl would mean what?
Default assumption, original assumption, default assumption.
We say Al-Asl Baqa' Ma'kan Ala
Ma'kan, which we translated here as the
default is the continuation of what was previously
established, the continuation of what has been previously
established.
We have Al-Asl Al-Bara'a, clearance
from liability.
That's Al-Asl Al-Bara'a, Al-Asl
Al-Ibaha, Al-Asl is permissibility of Al
-Ashya'a, of all things, and also permissibility
of customary actions versus devotional actions.
Customary actions versus devotional actions, which is Adat
versus Ibadat.
Okay, so let's take the first subsidiary maxim.
Al-Asl Baqa' Ma'kan Ala Ma'kan.
This is a huge maxim.
The default is the continuation of what was
previously established.
The default is the continuation of what has
been previously established.
This means what?
Istashaab Al-Madi Ila Al-Hadir.
Istashaab Al-Madi Ila Al-Hadir.
Al-Madi is present.
Al-Madi is past.
Al-Hadir is present.
Istashaab Al-Madi means that you pull the
Madi with you towards Al-Hadir.
You know, so the Madi would basically carry
over into Al-Hadir, or carrying over the
past into the present, carrying over the past
into the present.
So whatever has been established in the past,
it goes on.
It continues until it has been interrupted.
So the principle in Al-Qa'id Al
-Sa'diyya, and you're familiar now with Al-Qa
'id Al-Sa'diyya.
This appears, this Qa'id Al-Asl, to
show you how tightly connected Al-Asl Baqa'
Ma'kan Ala Ma'kan Wa Al-Yaqeen
La Yazool Bil-Shaq.
In Al-Qa'id Al-Sa'diyya, they were
combined together.
So the Sheikh said, Al-Asl Baqa' Ma
'kan Ala Ma'kan Wa Al-Yaqeen La
Yazool Bil-Shaq.
Combined them in one Qa'ida, in one
maxim, which is the default is the continuation
of what has been already established, and certainty
is not negated by doubt.
Combined the two in one Qa'ida.
So it is also expressed by the Hanafis
as Al-Qadim Yutrak Ala Qidamihi Wa Al
-Darar La Yaqoonu Qadiman.
Al-Qadim Yutrak Ala Qidamihi.
Al-Qadim is what?
That which has been established of old.
You know, Al-Qadim means old.
So what has been established, or I say
here, what is established of old, is left
as it is.
Is left as it is.
Al-Qadim Yutrak Ala Qidamihi.
Left as it is.
So we know that this house belongs to
Muhammad.
So it continues like this.
Yutrak Ala Qidamihi.
He's been living there for 30 years.
So Yutrak Ala Qidamihi.
But there is a another maxim attached to
this one.
Al-Darar La Yaqoonu Qadiman.
Al-Darar La Yaqoonu Qadiman.
So you have a spout that is bothering
all the people passing by in the street.
It brings, you know, rainwater on the people
passing by.
And you say the spout has been here
forever.
I don't care.
Al-Darar La Yaqoonu Qadiman.
Harm is not considered old.
Harm is not considered old.
Or harm is not, cannot be established.
So it will be removed regardless.
Okay.
So this maxim aligns with a significant principle
of Islamic legal theory, which is Qa'ilat
Al-Istishaab.
This maxim, Al-Asli Baqaa Makaan Ala Makaan,
aligns, we're talking about Usul Al-Fiqh here
or what?
We're talking about Qa'id.
However, there is, as we have discussed in
the beginning, a relationship, a very intimate relationship
between Al-Qa'id, Al-Usul, Al-Fiqh,
and so on.
So this Qa'idah aligns with Qa'idah
Usuliyyah, with a Qa'idah in Islamic legal
theory or Usul Al-Fiqh, fundamentals of Fiqh,
principles of jurisprudence, whatever, however you translate it,
which is Qa'idah Al-Istishaab.
In fact, that is what, you know, he
clearly says in Sharh Al-Kawka Bin Munir.
I don't know if it is in your
book or not.
But anyway, it is very connected to Qa
'idah Al-Istishaab.
There are several types of Al-Istishaab that
Sheikh Saad Al-Shetri, who, you know, wrote
a commentary on Al-Qa'idah Al-Sa'diyyah,
Sheikh Saad Al-Shetri wrote a commentary on
Al-Qa'idah Al-Sa'diyyah and mentioned several
types of Al-Istishaab.
And I quoted him verbatim in the book
because his breakdown of Al-Istishaab is very
beautiful and very comprehensive.
So he says Al-Istishaab is of several
types.
Al-Istishaab is what?
Presumption of what?
Continuity.
Continuity.
Presumption of continuity.
So Al-Istishaab is of several types.
Presumption of original permissibility, that is Al-Ibah
Al-Asliyyah.
Presumption of permissibility, Al-Ibah Al-Asliyyah, original
permissibility.
Everything is permissible until proven otherwise.
Presumption of Baraa, a hallmark of Islam, signature
characteristic of Islam.
We're born free of sin and we're born
free of liability.
Dhimmah Fariha.
Dhimmah would be translated as liability, individual liability,
I guess.
So Fariha, empty, you know, clear.
So you're born free of sin and free
of liability.
You don't owe anybody anything until proven otherwise.
That's presumption of Al-Baraa, you know, or
individual's liability being clear of any obligations until
proven otherwise.
Presumption of, you know, Istishaab Nass Al-Sharaa,
presumption of a text's validity, the validity of
text until it's proven to be abrogated.
Presumption of continuity of generality, continuity of generality,
Istishaab Al-Ummum, when you have a general
statement from Allah or the Prophet ﷺ, a
general statement, you shouldn't say, well, it may
be specified.
Okay, prove it.
It is general until you prove it specified.
You can't say, well, it's just a general
statement.
There may be specifications, okay?
There may be, but we will act upon
the generality of the statement until you basically
demonstrate where the taqsis is.
Then we have presumption of continuity of an
existing condition, that is Istishaab Al-Wasf.
Istishaab Al-Wasf is to presume the continuity
of an existing condition.
If you have tahara, then we will not
break your tahara.
If you have ritual purity, we will not
tell you it's broken until it is proven
so.
And then the last one is Istishaab Al
-Ijma'a Fi Mahal Al-Niza'a.
Istishaab Al-Ijma'a Fi Mahal Al-Niza
'a, which is to presume the continuity of
consensus, presume the continuity of consensus.
For example, if you make tayammum and you're
ready to pray, you're on your way to
pray and you find the bucket of water,
you know, is your tayammum valid?
Not valid by consensus.
You found the bucket of water.
So, okay.
Now, you started the prayer.
You've started the prayer.
So by consensus, tayammum is not valid.
You found a bucket of water.
You started the prayer.
You started the prayer.
Should we yanastashib Al-Ijma'a with us?
Meaning, should we basically pull that consensus into
the new circumstance or apply that consensus, let
it carry over into the new circumstance?
Some people will argue this.
This will be controversial.
Some people will say, we had agreed that
seeing the water before making takbir invalidates your
tayammum.
Therefore, we're arguing, those who will take that
position will argue that you need to prove
that this consensus is inapplicable after they made
takbir.
But this is certainly a controversial issue.
So some of the scholars will say, once
you have made takbir, that's it.
A controversial issue.
But the people who use this argument will
say, nastashib Al-Ijma'a.
We will let the Ijma'a carry over
into the new circumstance.
Now, some applications.
Distinguishing between doubt about the start of Fajr
and sunset.
So doubt about Fajr and sunset.
This is a very interesting, and this is
where we can demonstrate the difference between shak
and dhan.
Shak and dhan.
So if you're doubtful, if the Fajr time
came in or not, and you continue to
eat because you're doubtful whether Fajr time came
in or not, did you break your fast?
Did you break your fast?
No, you didn't.
Because the default presumption is the continuity of
the night until Fajr comes in.
Continuity of the night is the default assumption.
If you doubt whether the sun set and
you eat, whether it's Maghrib time and you
eat.
Doubt whether it's Maghrib time and you eat.
Did you break your fast?
You broke your fast.
Because the default assumption is the continuity of
the day.
So you cannot basically break your fast on
the basis of doubt.
Doubt.
Here, it makes a big difference.
Assumption and doubt.
Shak.
Because if it is assumption, so doubt,
50%.
Fajr, Maghrib.
Maghrib.
Here, you doubt whether Fajr came in.
Your fast is good.
Here, your fast is not good.
That is simply because you are doubtful.
Not because you became, you came to know
that Maghrib did not come in.
Even if you did not know that Maghrib
did not come in, you broke your fast.
Because you broke your fast on the basis
of 50%.
Now, assumption or predominant assumption.
Assumption or predominant assumption.
51%.
And I know it's a little cruel to
say 50 and 51 because it is very
hard for a person to sort them out.
But I'm just telling you this is assumption.
You know, it's not two sides that are
completely equal.
You're somewhat more confident that Maghrib came in.
Okay, so Fajr.
Assumption.
Now, you assume that Fajr
came in.
That is predominant assumption.
And then you come to discover that it
did not come in.
No, no.
You assume that Fajr came in.
Assume here Fajr came in.
You assume here Maghrib came in.
Do you need to repeat?
Just assume and you continue to eat or
you start to eat.
Do you need to repeat?
No.
Your siyam is sahih.
Your fasting is sahih in both cases.
What if you come to know, what if
you come to know you were wrong?
You were wrong.
You came to know you were wrong.
When it comes to doubt, like even if
you did not come to know that you
were wrong, you will repeat, okay, for Maghrib.
If you come to know that you were
wrong, you will repeat in the mazhab because
there is no consideration for an assumption that
was proven wrong.
That was proven wrong.
You will repeat.
However, you know, Ibn Taymiyyah said, all you
needed to do is to act on predominant
assumption.
Therefore, you don't need to repeat.
What was wajib on you is to act
on predominant assumption.
Therefore, you don't need to repeat.
The hunch could be 51.
You know, doubt is when, you know, ihtimalan
la maziyata li ahadihima alal aakhir.
You have two possibilities, but none of them
has any more strength than the other.
It's just like, you know, I really can't
tell.
I really can't tell.
Versus, you know, you know, I know I
prayed for your raqas.
Why am I, you know, like, so anyway,
it is very hard.
But you feel it.
You feel it.
You feel that sometimes there is the two
possibilities.
There is no tiebreaker whatsoever between them.
And sometimes there is a tiebreaker.
Like, you feel inside that one possibility is
more likely.
But checking your phone is not, you know,
that's quite strong.
You know, like, you really, like, you can
go by your phone because these apps are
considered to be accurate.
So another one, if a man dies and
leaves two sons, one is Muslim and one
is not Muslim, you know, who inherits him?
A man dies and leaves two sons.
One is Muslim and one is not Muslim.
They both argue that their dad was on
their respective faith.
So the Muslim argues, my dad was Muslim.
I get to inherit from them.
And the non-Muslim says, my dad was
non-Muslim.
I should be the one to inherit from
him.
And this is really a demonstration of the
justice of Islam.
And these fuqaha were basically trying to follow,
were extremely principled.
They're just basically trying to follow the principles.
They will give the inheritance to the non
-Muslim.
Why?
If we can't sort out the deen of
the father, they will give the inheritance to
the non-Muslim.
They will say to the non-Muslim, okay,
you're saying that your father was Muslim.
So there are two possibilities.
Your father was original Muslim.
Your father was a convert.
If your father was original Muslim, then your
brother must be Muslim as well.
And if you say that my brother apostate,
but this is a little bit different because
they will say that the apostasy of your
brother in a Muslim country will not be
left, you know, like unpunished.
He will not be left alone to apostatize.
So they will tell him, no, we will
not believe that, you know, your father was
an original Muslim because how come your brother
is not Muslim?
Okay.
Had he not, had he apostatized, he would
not be left to do so.
Okay.
So now, then your father is a convert.
Then your father is a convert.
And if your father is a convert, what
is it us?
What is the default?
Default is that he was not a Muslim
and then he became Muslim.
He was first not a Muslim.
So you are claiming a change of the
status quo, a change of default.
Your brother basically has the default with him.
You're claiming a change of the default.
You need to prove it.
Your brother doesn't need to prove it.
The inheritance would go to the non-Muslim.
Another one position, position, which is indicates ownership
and exclusive claim, which means that when you
are in position of anything, any item, any
property, it basically indicates ownership or at least
exclusive claim.
You know, that this, you have an exclusive
claim on this property or item until proven
otherwise, because it's in your hand.
Assuming continuity of conditions, someone, okay, someone who's
known to be wealthy comes in and asks
for zakah.
Zakat committee is here, if you're on the
zakat committee.
Someone who's known to be wealthy comes and
asks for zakah.
What would you give him or her from
the zakat?
No, because you are presuming the continuity of
the original condition, which is that they are
well-off and they are wealthy.
The Prophet ﷺ said, حَتَّ يَشْهَدَ لَهُ ثَرَاسَةٌ
مِن ذَوِي الْحِجَىٰ مِن قَوْمِهِ So until three
wise men of his people testify on his
behalf, that he is, or, you know, nowadays,
because we, it is the testimony of three
people.
Three people would say that, you know, no,
we know he has gone through some struggles.
We know that he had some hardship.
We know that he had lost his business
and stuff like this.
So presumption of the continuity of the previous
condition.
Okay, among the branches of this maxim is
another important maxim, but this is sub-subsidiary.
Sub-subsidiary.
It is not, you know, so it is
a branch of the branch.
So, الْأَصْدُ مَكَان عَلَى مَكَان means what?
إضافة الحادث إلى أقرب أوقاته which would translate
into attributing an incident to its closest possible
time.
So this principle is also expressed as الْأَصْدُ
فِي الصِّفَاتِ أَوَى الْأُمُورِ الْعَارِضَةِ الْعَدَمِ old assumption
regarding incidental attributes, incidental attributes.
If this is about, not about قَعَقِيدَةِ here,
but so عَارِض, incidental attributes, something that, you
know, is not inherent, is not that, it
is عَارِض.
So whatever incidental attributes, you know, the presumption
is, or new occurrences, new de-emergent, whatever,
new occurrences, the presumption is, they're non-existent,
they're non-existent.
So if someone finds, okay, but if someone
finds emissions in their underwear, like, you know,
uh, and they don't know when this happened,
so they had, like, you know, they had,
you know, slept several times in the past
24 hours, they don't know when this happened.
Of course, they're required to make wusl, but
which prayers do they need to repeat?
The prayers from the last sleep, from the
last sleep.
Why?
Because this is an incidental occurrence, right?
An incidental occurrence.
So if you slept here, you slept here,
you slept here, you're awake here, awake here,
okay, uh, and then you find the emissions
here, you need to repeat the prayers from
here to here, because it's possible that you
had had it here.
Why shouldn't we say you need to repeat,
go back until you ensure, until you ensure,
because in some other applications, we will say
you go back until you ensure certainty, you
know, that your ibada is, was, was correct.
We will not say this, because to find
witness in your underwear, emissions in your underwear,
you know, al-asd, al-adam or not,
nonexistence, al-asd, the default is that this
was not, the default was not, it was
not existent here.
But since I did find it, then I
will have to attribute it to the nearest
time, the nearest time, last time I was
asleep.
Okay, a seller and a buyer.
So this is another interesting example.
A seller and a buyer disagree over, and,
and this is where we see competing qawa
'id, exceptions, as we said, al-qawa'id
aghlabiyya or kulliyya, al-qawa'id are universal
or predominant.
We said universal, not predominant, even though some
of the scholars said predominant, because there are
exceptions, but we said that they are universal
until another qa'ida competes with them or
texts, you know, but they should be muttarid,
they should be consistent, they should be universal
in and of themselves.
Here we have competition between two qawa'id.
I sell you an item, you come back
in three days and you say it, well,
it, it is defective, there is this defect
in the item.
You are the buyer, I am the seller.
We go to the judge, we tell the
judge, I sold him this item, you know,
without any defects, and he claims that the
defect happened in my position.
I think it happened in his position, you
know, after he purchased it, when he took
it home.
So now the judge will have to choose
between my claim and his claim.
What will the judge say?
There are two positions in the madhhab.
I don't agree with the mu'tamid.
The mu'tamid therefore thereafter became what?
That we will go by the buyer's claim.
Buyer's claim.
Why?
Because, so al-asl that he did not
receive the missing part.
The default is that he did not receive
the missing part.
So if we say that the product was
complete, one is arguing that the product was
complete, one is arguing that the product was
incomplete, so we will go by the claim
of the product being incomplete, because incomplete is
the default.
Completeness is not the default.
It's, you know, incomplete until proven otherwise.
So I believe that the other position in
the madhhab is stronger.
The claim that should be accepted here is
the claim of the seller.
Why?
This defect, this incidental occurrence, you know, so
like, would it make more sense based on
this qa'i that to say it happened
in the position of the buyer or the
seller?
The buyer, because, you know, for the last
three days it has been with the buyer.
So instead of going all the way back
and saying the defect happened four days ago
when it's still with the seller, we will.
No, it's an incident of defect, incident and
occurrence.
It happened recently and we should, what you
want to remember is that the mu'tamad in
the madhhab is the buyer's claim, not the
seller's.
But anyway, it's not, anyway.
So anyway, next, the next one, the next
subsidiary.
Okay, so we're doing two subsidiary applications today
only.
Okay, the other one is al-asl bara
'at al-dhimmah.
Now, the is not a third.
It belongs here under this.
It belongs here under this maxim.
So al-asl bara'at al-dhimmah, you
know, the beautiful hallmark of Islam.
Clearance of liability.
You're born free of sin.
You're born free of liability.
You continue to be free of sin and
liability until proven otherwise.
Clearance of liability or bara'at al-dhimmah
encompasses both the rights of Allah and the
rights of his creations.
You're, you know, free of liability, free of
obligations when it comes to rights of Allah
and rights of individuals.
In Sharh al-kawqa bin Munir, it says,
based on this maxim, the negator is not
required to produce evidence and the defendant is
not required to produce evidence.
Anyone who negates is not required to produce
evidence.
Anyone who, you know, who's a defendant who's
trying to deny a claim is not required
to produce evidence.
Why?
The default is with him.
You know, continuity of, not innocence, but clearance
from liability.
Clear.
I'm clear.
Okay.
Now, applications of this principle in avoiding liability
due to doubt.
If a woman miscarries, we're actually doing quite
well in terms of time, so I need
to slow down.
I've been trying to rush through it because
I was afraid I'm not going to finish
and now we will have like a lot
of extra time on hand.
Okay, good.
So, if a woman miscarries a piece of
flesh and trustworthy midwives testify that there were
faint human features, faint human features in the
embryo, in the fetus.
So, someone punches a woman in the stomach,
a bad thing, but, you know, someone does,
and then she miscarries a piece of flesh.
The midwives, or now the doctors, will say,
and certainly now you could figure out if
this is a pregnancy or not much earlier
anyway, but let's just go by what they're
saying and understand the principle and then application
is a different story.
So, someone punches her in her stomach and
then she miscarries a piece of flesh.
The midwives say that there are human features
in this.
So, this was a fetus.
This was a fetus.
Then compensation, which is al-ghurra, will be
required of the, you know, aggressor.
Now, if they say that we're in doubt,
had this stayed in, it would have had
human features maybe next week, in two weeks,
and so on.
Will we, will we require the aggressor to
pay al-ghurra based on that doubt?
No, we will not.
So, the default is clearance from liability, clear
from liability.
Will they be punished for punching her?
Of course, but they will not be required
to pay compensation for the fetus because it
was a matter of doubt.
Nowadays, it's not doubtful.
So, anyway, the next example is if a
man runs, and certainly there is, like, there
are two views in the madhhab, whether we
will pay, we will require the person to
pay the compensation, even with doubt.
The stronger view is no compensation, and their
argument is al-asl al-baraa, clearance from
liability.
If a man runs his fingers through his
hair and a hair falls out, okay, so
you have now a muhrim, a muhrim who
runs his fingers through their hair or combs
their hair and hair falls out, you know,
where these, people used to make a big
deal out of this, by the way, you
know, you shouldn't, you don't have a problem.
But people, because people used to be quite
obsessive about this.
Now, keep in mind that three hairs need
to fall for the fidya, the complete fidya,
but then one hair is one mudd of
ta'am to a miskeen, and two hairs
is two mudds, one mudd or two or
half a sah, it's, you know, controversial, but
anyway.
So there will be exception for hair falling.
Now, which hair?
A hair that is alive or living, I
guess, not dead.
What if you doubt whether the hair is
alive or dead?
Al-asl al-baraa.
You know, the default is clearance from liability.
And that should give you a lot, you
know, sort of ease.
That, you know, if you say that likely
this was dead, because to separate between dead
hair and living hair is not that easy.
But, uh, so you like, yeah, anyway, so
they used to not play with their hair,
by the way, when they're Muharram, they just
leave it alone.
But then hair falls.
If, if you're, if you're not, if you
don't have predominant assumption that this hair was
living and not dead, then you are, then
you're doubting.
You have two possibilities without, you know, one
outweighing the other, without one outweighing the other.
You go by which one?
Baraa.
Clear from liability.
You're clear from liability, so you don't have
to excipiate.
It's also worth noting that the Madhhab takes
a precautionary approach concerning acts of worship.
So concerning acts of worship, the Madhhab takes
a precautionary approach.
Uh, so when we say, did I pray
two or three rakahs, the Madhhab says what?
Two rakahs.
Why?
Because al-asl al-itmam, you know, default
is that you're required to complete your act
of worship, and you need to ensure that
you have completed your act of worship, al
-asl al-itmam.
And we don't know if you, you did
the third rakah or not.
So you have become liable.
You can't argue that the default is non
-liability, because you have become liable.
Liable for what?
Liable for four rakahs.
So, you know, you need to ensure that
you do the four rakahs.
Now you're not sure if you did the
third or not.
Repeat it.
That's the Madhhab, you know.
And certainly in the Madhhab also, uh, some
would go by predominant assumption.
If you have predominant assumption, by agreement, if
it is doubt, if it is 50-50,
you need to, uh, repeat it.
You need to do the third rakah by
consensus, okay?
The question comes when it's not 50-50.
It's 80-20.
And sometimes 95% and 5%, 95%
I prayed, uh, three rakahs.
Uh, but in the Madhhab, in the Madhhab,
they treat them as shakir.
They will tell you, uh, repeat the rakah.
Repeat the rakah.
Okay, what are other examples?
If you combine between adr and safr, if
you combine between two conditions, uh, and safr,
being a traveler and being a resident, and
let us say, uh, so if you combine,
if you leave, if you leave before you
pray dhuhr, you know, and now you're traveling,
uh, but dhuhr became, you became liable for
dhuhr when you are a resident, do you
pray four or two?
Four.
If you, if vice versa, if, if you
became liable for dhuhr when you are a
traveler, you arrive at home, you pray four
or two?
Four.
Why?
Because, you know, itmam takes priority here, you
know, ensure that your ibadah is complete, takes
priority.
So if you have combined the two conditions,
you will be treated as a resident.
If you wipe on your socks, uh, before
you leave, and then you're traveling, how many
days do you have?
One.
If you arrive on the second day, if
you arrive at home on the second day,
can you finish your three days?
No.
One.
You know, so you have to stop now
wiping, uh, because we will give precedence to,
uh, the, the default of the requirement to
complete and fulfill your act of worship.
Um, and that actually brings us to the
end of today's session.
Yeah, of course.
Um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um,
if you straddle the two conditions, travel and
residence, and, you know, you would favor residence
over traveling.
Uh, you will go by the rulings of
of the resident, not the traveler.
You'll go by the rulings of the resident,
not the traveler.
Yes, yes.
There is a well that the property would
go to.
No, the well was covered with wood.
No.
The person who buys the property doesn't know
that it's there, but it was found deep.
It wasn't.
So if we can figure out, if we
can figure out when the defect existed, then
we will go by this.
So if we can verify that the defect
existed with the buyer and it's not a
matter of guessing, we can verify that the
defect existed with the seller before the purchase,
then we will go by this.
Then certainly the buyer will have a claim
if we can verify this.
This example will apply if it is impossible
for us to verify whether the defect happened
with the buyer or the seller.
Only if it is impossible, yes.
That's why my own preference is to go
with the seller and not the buyer.
My own preference is to accept the seller's
claim, not the buyer's claim.
There are many arguments that can be made
in favor of this position.
The seller's claim, not the buyer's claim.
Yes, ma'am.
Yes, of course.
You are allowed because you are allowed to
come by Zahra al-Asr before you reach
home because you are still a traveler.
You certainly have the rulings of a traveler
as long as you are a traveler.
Whatever you guys want.
If we can do 10 more minutes of
questions and answers if you want.
No, you should have ended the video when
we ended.
This is all, yeah.