Hatem al-Haj – QWD025 Coherence of Sharia – Subsidiary Maxims Under Maxim 2
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss various legal maxims related to health, sustainability, and the default position of the Prophet's decision to use the same day to collect the day from Yemen. They emphasize the importance of honoring source of reference and finding a mistake in a decision. The speakers also discuss the default position for sharia, which is impermissible, and the importance of respectful behavior and liciencies in determining whether someone is a liberal or liberal. They also touch on the importance of animal and animal health, and the need for people to have a clear understanding of the meaning of the bismual deen.
AI: Summary ©
In the name of Allah, the most gracious,
the most merciful, and the Messenger of Allah,
upon his family and companions, and upon those
who have not gone astray.
To proceed.
So today, God willing, we will continue with
Al-Yaqeelah Az-Zulbishak, the second major legal
maxim.
Al-Yaqeelah Az-Zulbishak, which means certainty is
not overruled by doubt.
Certainty is not removed or overruled by doubt.
Today we are covering one of the subsidiary
maxims of Al-Yaqeelah Az-Zulbishak.
You know, the major maxims can have subsidiary
maxims.
Subsidiary maxims can have subsidiary maxims.
Sub-subsidiary maxims.
So, today we are covering an important, or
actually a couple of important maxims.
They are subsidiary maxims under Al-Yaqeelah Az
-Zulbishak.
The first one is this one here, which
is Al-Asdf Al-Ashya' Wal-A'yan
Al-Ibaha The default ruling concerning things and
objects is permissibility.
So, permissibility is the default ruling concerning things
and objects.
Everything is permissible until proven otherwise.
وَجُعَلَتْ لِيَ الْأَرْضُ مِسْشِدًا وَطَهُورًا And the whole
Earth was made pure and purifying to Me.
So, هو الذي خَلَقَ لَكُم مَا فِي الْأَرْضِ
جَمِيعًا It is He who created for you
everything on Earth.
Everything that's on Earth is created for us.
Therefore, everything that's on Earth is permissible and
is clean until proven otherwise.
We can add to this another hadith to
prove this qa'idah.
We can add another important hadith which is
whatever Allah makes halal in His book is
halal and whatever He makes haram in His
book is haram.
وَمَا سَكَّتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ عَفْوَ And whatever Allah
is silent about is afwa.
Afwa means exempted.
It means subject to exemption or exempted or
pardoned, forgiven, you know, something like that.
Now, for this particular, you know, for
these evidences and because of this ruling, Imam
Taqiyyidin Ibn Taymiyyah says, الاحتياط بمجرد الشك في
أمور المياه ليس مستحبا ولا مشروعا.
So, this is an antidote to obsessiveness.
This is an antidote to obsessiveness.
So Imam Taqiyyidin says here, precaution based solely
on doubt in matters of water is neither
recommended nor legislated.
Most of the, you know, most of the
obsessiveness that happens among the Muslims happens with
regard to purification and prayers.
Most of it happens in these two areas.
Purification beats prayers like by a factor of
10.
So, most of the obsessiveness that afflicts Muslims
and their worship is related to matters of
purification.
So, he says, you know, that to base,
precaution based solely on doubt in matters of
water is neither recommended nor legislated to begin
with.
In fact, it's not even encouraged to inquire
about such matters.
Instead, the issue should be based on استصحاب,
استصحاب, presumption of continuity, presumption of continuity.
You presume that the water continues to be,
you know, you continue to be pure, the
water continues to be pure, you know, objects
continue to be pure until you're certain otherwise.
So, if evidence of impurity emerges, the water
is deemed impure.
Otherwise, mere suspicion of impurity does not justify
avoiding its use.
Remember, Omar ibn Khattab said, يا صاحب الحوض
لا تخبره يا صاحب المزاب لا تخبرنا Oh,
owner of the cistern, owner of the gutter,
do not let us know.
Don't, you know, you know, don't let us
know about the purity of the water.
It should be pure.
You should not, no one should be asking
you, هل ولغة السباة في حوضك؟
Did, you know, did predatory animals basically drink
from your cistern?
Or, you know, is the water that's coming
down from the gutter is clean or not?
So, you're walking in the street and water
drops on you.
It is clean.
Don't worry.
You know, and base everything on the presumption
of continuity.
Otherwise, you will be afflicted by obsessiveness.
Now, so, this قاعدة, this قاعدة is a
very important قاعدة.
But, is it basically immune to disagreement?
No.
I mean, everything is prone to disagreement.
Even this قاعدة is prone to disagreement.
And there is even disagreement about this قاعدة
within the Hanbali Madhhab.
In fact, you have people as big as
Ibn Hamid and Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la
saying that the default should be impermissibility.
And they, and you will find some Mu'tazila
also say that the default should be impermissibility.
Which, which changes your stereotype about Mu'tazila.
They were not, you know, they were not
what you think.
They are not like, you know, secular people
nowadays who don't care about their religion.
The Mu'tazila, actually, some of them were Ubad
and Zuhad and so on.
They had some intellectual issues where they departed
from Ahlus Sunnah.
but these were, like, many of them were
very pious people.
So, they, they figured that the default should
be impermissibility.
And their rationale behind this is this stuff
is not yours, you know.
So, you, you cannot, basically, you can't dispose
of what is not yours without permission from
the owner.
Like, you cannot use what is not yours.
You cannot make use or benefit of that
which is not yours without permission from the
owner.
And, until the revelation comes down indicating such
permission, you should refrain until you get a
permission from the owner.
That, that is the rationale.
But, certainly, we have on our side, you
know, all that's on earth, and other reports.
That is why you will have the dominant
position in the Madhhab.
You know, and this tells you also that
the dominant position in the Madhhab could change
from time to time.
Because, during the Qadi Abu Ya'la's time,
who can argue with Abu Ya'la, you
know.
During Ibn Hamid's time, you know, who could
argue with Ibn Hamid.
But, things change.
So, and then, certainly, we have, this position
comes, the position of permissibility comes from people
as big as Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi
who is a disciple of al-Khiraqi.
And, certainly, that's huge.
And then, we have Abu al-Khattab siding
with Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi.
And then, it became the dominant within the
Madhhab.
It is also the dominant position according to
the majority, and it is also the correct
position in my belief.
It is the correct, it is the, and
it should be the correct position.
There is like a third position that I
had mentioned in the book.
The third position is the position of al
-Waqifiyyah.
The Waqifiyyah are the people who suspend judgment,
non-committal stance, non-committal stance, people who
suspend judgment, Waqifiyyah.
They said, well, we just suspend judgment about
these things until we know if they are
permissible or not permissible until we receive a
revelation.
Because, without revelation, we can't be sure.
Now, according to the understanding of the majority,
this is the understanding of the majority, this
is the dominant position within the Habbani Madhhab,
this is the majority of the Fuqaha, of
the Muslimin, this is the correct position.
According to this, this is, you know, this
Qa'ida represents a significant principle of Islam's
tolerant and easy nature.
So, Shaykh al-Burnu, Rahimahullah, I'm sorry, Shaykh
al-Burnu, Hafizahullah, Shaykh al-Burnu is the
author of Mawsu'at al-Qawa'at al
-Fiqhiyyah.
This is the biggest work on Qawa'at
al-Fiqhiyyah, legal maxims.
It's not the biggest, but it is the
biggest work by a solitary author, or a
single author, because Mawsu'at Zayed bin Sultan
is the biggest work.
But Mawsu'at al-Qawa'at al-Fiqhiyyah
by Shaykh al-Burnu is the biggest work
on this subject by a single author.
So, Shaykh al-Burnu, Hafizahullah, said, many foods
and drinks, such as, he said, many foods
and drinks, such as, plants, fruits, and grains,
imported from distant lands, whose names we don't
even know, and whose harm has not been
proven, are based on this principle.
So anything, you know, is based on this
principle.
It also applies to various types of furniture,
furnishings, and newly developed tools, provided they do
not fall under any prohibition.
So, everything is halal for us to use
until proven otherwise.
So, an example of favoring permissibility over prohibition
based on this maxim is the allowance of
a garment.
So, we'll go over different examples now.
So if you have a garment that is
made of silk and wool, and the silk
is 30%, the wool is 70%, 70%.
Is this halal or haram?
Halal.
Okay.
So, 70%, 30%, 30%.
Halal or haram?
Huh?
Haram.
50%, 50%.
Halal or haram?
Halal.
Okay.
And there could be disagreement here, but halal
according to the Madhhab.
Why?
Because we favor here, permissibility.
We favor here, permissibility.
So, having said that, having said that, there
is, there are some exceptions, some exceptions to
this rule.
And the clearest exceptions were all, you know,
mentioned in two verses of poetry by Shaykh
al-Sa'di, rahimahullah, who said, وَالْأَصْلُ فِي الْأَبْضَاءِ
وَالْلُحُومِ وَالنَّفْسِ وَالْمَاءُ وَأَمْوَالِ لِلْمَعْصُومِ تَحْرِيمُهَا
حَتَّى يَجِيءَ الْحِلُّ فَافْحَمْ هَذَكَ اللَّهُ مَا يُمَلُّ
So, وَالْأَصْلُ فِي الْأَبْضَاءِ وَالْلُحُومِ the default principle
with regard to marital relationships and meets, abda'
would be the private parts, it's used to
refer to marital relationships, and meets وَالنَّفْسِ وَالأَمْوَالِ
لِلْمَعْصُومِ and, you know, and the property of
the inviolable, of the inviolable is prohibition, is
prohibition.
So, now, so we have three different exceptions
here to the default of permissibility and you
should also add to the the life and
property of المعصوم what the honor of المعصوم
but we're not talking about, you know, abstract
things here, we're talking about أشياء and أعيان,
we're talking about things and objects, but in
general, when we cover the next قاعدة, this
also includes the honor of the inviolable, the
honor of the inviolable, so النفس, المال, العرض
which is life, you know, property and honor
and then we have marital relations and
then we have meet okay,
so the default in marital relations and meets
the life and wealth of those protected is
their prohibition until permission comes, understand, may Allah
guide you what is being dictated فَافْحَمْ هَذَكَ
اللَّهُ مَا يُمَلُّوا understand, may Allah guide you
what's being dictated so the use of the
term معصوم why did he use the term
because certainly this applies to everyone who is
inviolable sacredness of life, property and honor of
anyone who is inviolable makes it as an
exception from the rule so you have to
basically refrain until it's clear for you that
you can have this this is the property
of your brother or a property of an
inviolable person inviolable person, even someone under a
contract you are under a contract with them
they are on a contract with you as
a Muslim so ذمّي, معاهد someone under a
contract and is protected so for us it
would be the mainstream society and for Muslims
in Muslim countries it would be the ذمّي
and so non-Muslims are under contract all
of these are considered inviolable or معصوم and
the Prophet ﷺ said من قطر معاهد لم
يرح رائحة الجنة whoever kills a معاهد someone
under contract will not smell the fragrance of
paradise will not smell the fragrance of paradise
and so this should be clear and this
is easy to understand marital relations would be
also included and meets, why?
okay but before I move on to marital
relations you know I have something here in
كشّاف القناة that I have reported or cited
whoever curses a ذمّي must be disciplined because
they are inviolable and their honor is protected
so when it comes to the ذمّي it
is not only life and property just like
the Muslim honor also is protected so you
can't commit you can't violate their honor in
any way now when it comes to marital
relationships why are we saying that in marital
relationships the default is impermissibility because when Allah
SWT expressed this in the Quran He said
وَالَّذِينَهُمْ لَفَرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوَمَ
مَلَكَةَ إِمَانُهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ غَيْرُوا مَلَوْمِينَ وَالَّذِينَ those who
guard their chastity guard their private parts guard
their chastity except from that way of expression
indicates that the default is permissibility so all
is impermissible except for such and such so
this is one way they basically supported their
proof their notion of default is impermissibility we
also know that a man came to the
Prophet and said to him that I have
made a woman and then a slave woman
came and said that she had breastfed both
of us and the Prophet turned away from
him he came back to him and he
said he said she breastfed both of us,
the Prophet turned away from him and then
he came back and he said she said
she breastfed both of us he said to
him how could you stay married to her
when she claimed what she claimed then based
on this based on this they said that
this is doubtful so the report of one
single woman does not really establish certainty and
based on this suspicion the Prophet ﷺ told
him to leave his wife but it is
interesting it is interesting that the Prophet ﷺ
turned away from him and this is something
that particularly for new Muslims people who you
come in and you tell them the whole
truth and nothing but the truth so your
job, your wife, your this your that and
then you know within two hours he finds
out that all of his life has to
be changed so anyway so the Prophet ﷺ
turned away from him turned away from him
he insisted so this is basically sort of
measured exposure measured transfer of information, you don't
have to transfer all the truth all at
once did you say something?
the dog?
oh of course the dog too and after
that the obligations that you know you have
to wake up and certainly you need to
teach them about Salah and so on but
the you know anyway but what does it
mean when we say that the default for
abda and luhum or marital relations and meat
is prohibition so Ibn Rajab tells us what
it means it means the following he says
you know when it comes to permissible things
you proceed until proven otherwise like you could
use whatever eat whatever you want until proven
otherwise but on the other hand what is
originally prohibited if the default is prohibition such
as private parts and the meat of animals
cannot be deemed permissible except with certainty of
its lawful status and then at the end
of his quotation here he says for this
reason the Prophet ﷺ forbade eating game when
the hunter finds the mark of an arrow
other than his own the bite of a
dog other than his own or finds the
game fallen into water so Ali ibn Hatim
asked the Prophet ﷺ came and asked the
Prophet ﷺ as he used to hunt so
he came to ask him about the permissibility
of game animals he hunts and the Prophet
ﷺ told him he asked him two questions
that are very relevant to this discussion what
if I he asked him what if I
find that my dog had eaten from the
game animal what if I find that my
dog had eaten from the game animal the
Prophet ﷺ said to him don't eat because
you know to hunt with a dog the
dog needs to be hunting for you not
for himself okay so the Prophet ﷺ said
because you don't know you don't know if
he caught the animal for himself or for
you so don't eat what is this this
is basically prohibition based on suspicion right prohibition
based on suspicion which goes to prove the
point you know of the discussion so now
then he asked him what if I find
with my dog other dogs he said to
him don't eat because you don't know if
your dog that you mentioned the name of
Allah on before you released is the one
who caught the animal or another dog prohibition
based on suspicion so this is the hadith
this is the most important evidence to be
cited by the people who say the default
when it comes to meats is impermissibility now
is this a matter of disagreement this also
is a matter of disagreement but this is
the dominant view in the madhab and it
is the position of the majority and I
think that I think that it has a
place as long as we don't exaggerate in
its application and we don't overdo it it
does have a place the place that it
has is to make you more cautious more
cautious with the property and honor of the
inviolable more cautious with marital relations more cautious
with meats ok
so there are certain things you know so
they say the default is impermissibility they actually
show some leniency here with meat in the
madhab in three different three different issues they
show leniency in the madhab with meat the
first one is the pronouncement of the name
of Allah the mention of the name of
Allah they show some leniency and the leniency
they show here is because of the hadith
of Aisha so if you are not sure
whether the slaughterer mentioned the name of Allah
or not Aisha asked the Prophet people bring
meat to us we don't know they are
new to Islam we don't know if they
have mentioned the name of Allah or not
when they slaughtered the Prophet said what?
you mention the name of Allah and eat
because of this they show leniency with that
so here you are not sure but it
was not prohibited we said in the previous
examples prohibition was based on suspicion and this
one prohibition was not based on suspicion and
why is that?
because that makes it too difficult that makes
things too difficult ok they also show flexibility
when there is doubt concerning the slaughterer ok
and this is this is irrelevant to us
to some extent according to some scholars I
don't particularly endorse that position but according to
some scholars they say that in our madhhab
if you find for instance the slaughterer of
an animal abandoned in a place where most
of the people are those whose slaughter is
permissible is allowed so you find an animal
slaughtered, abandoned in a place where most of
the people most of the people are you
know, their slaughter is permissible so they are
Muslim, it's a town largely of Muslims Jews
or Christians so if the town is largely
made up of Muslims, Jews or Christians you
find the slaughtered animal you can eat the
animal you can eat the animal so some
scholars including Shifa ibn Uthaymeen may Allah have
argued that the meat that you find in
the supermarket here should be should have the
same ruling I disagree, I have told you
before you know, my reasons for disagreement here
but this is the rationale and it teaches
us also that whenever there is a disagreement
you have to be respectful because you know
the opposition is not somebody who is necessarily
liberal or secular or whatever it is that
you guys names that you throw at people
but he may have his own and he
may be right and you may be wrong
no matter how confident you are so anyway
so if you find so here a suspicion
did not result in prohibition, right because you
don't even know who slaughtered you are not
sure who slaughtered suspicion is sufficient occasionally they
exhibit leniency in determining certainty of slaughter itself
but this leniency when it comes to slaughter,
slaughtering you know, so you find the skin
of an animal that is permissible to eat
but you don't know if the animal was
slaughtered or was not slaughtered could you use
the skin of that animal they say yes,
you could use the skin of that animal
here skin is a little bit you know,
is not as serious of a matter than
like meat like eating meat the use of
the hides of animals is not as serious
of a matter like eating meat therefore they
show leniency here and that is why spec
requires what is considered spec he you
know, a human like aptitude like no, it
tastes you know, so it is not always
mass and sometimes variant positions may seem to
you inconsistent but the has a reason why
he said what he said so you know
why are you making a distinction between the
use of skin and the eating of the
meat he has in his mind that this
is not as serious of a matter as
the other one so I say here occasionally
they exhibit leniency in determining the certainty of
slaughter but this applies to the purification of
skins and not to the permissibility of eating
meat which is a lesser matter in conclusion
the maxim does not mean that the consumption
of certain animals is prohibited until proven otherwise
so this is something that you want to
keep in mind when we say that the
default in meats is impermissibility we're saying that
you ought to verify that this is halal
for you, it does not mean that the
default when it comes to different animals is
impermissibility until proven otherwise in fact the default
is permissibility until proven otherwise so if you
find an animal if you hunt an animal
for instance and you don't know what's the
name of that thing or you don't know
what it is, you can eat it you
can eat it if you know and then
we will always favor the default of permissibility
in this regard certain things have been made
you know, impermissible to us and if that
thing is not one of them, you could
you could eat it okay so now that
you that you're clear on the position of
the madhhab, the position of the madhhab is
that the default is impermissibility here, default is
impermissibility here, default is impermissibility here you know
maa al-nafs al-mal al-ard al
-masoom al-abda al-luhoom all of this
default is impermissibility I just want you to
know that some contemporary Hanbali scholars argued about
this argued about that very qa'ida and
they suggested that the default should be permissibility
Sheikh Saad al-Shathri, who wrote a commentary
or who gave a commentary on al-Qa
'ada al-Sa'adiyya, he said that some
jurists maintain that the default is impermissibility, and
you don't eat if you don't know who
killed it and so on, so they use
this argument that's coming from hadith of Adi
ibn Hatim to say that the default is
impermissibility because the Prophet ﷺ based prohibition on
suspicion.
He argues that when we talk about default,
we're not talking about something in which two
reasons for permissibility and impermissibility coexisted, like here,
we're talking about something that doesn't have any
cause for permissibility or impermissibility.
He says that when it comes to water,
if you have a reason for purity and
a reason for impurity, even for water, that
results in impermissibility of the use of the
water.
But when it comes to, he says that
the same applies to meat, that the same
applies to animals.
Here, when the Prophet ﷺ, when you have
one dog, two dogs, one of them you
mentioned the name of Allah on, one of
them you did not mention the name of
Allah on, you don't know which dog caught
the animal, so you have one cause for
permissibility, one cause for impermissibility.
When you shoot the game animal and it
drowns and you don't know if your arrow
killed it or the water killed it, you
have one cause for permissibility, one cause for
impermissibility, and here you're favoring impermissibility.
He argues, and you know, and that's contrary
to the majority of Hanbali scholars historically, he
argues that this is not the subject matter
of the Qaedah.
The Qaedah should not be about this, the
Qaedah should be about scenarios where there are
no causes for permissibility or impermissibility, no cause
for permissibility or impermissibility.
What you want to remember is that you
should be cautious with these things, you should
be cautious with these things for sure.
But then he cites, which means, say, I
don't find in that which has been revealed
to me anything forbidden for a person to
eat unless, so unless it is this, this,
or that.
So the fact that Allah SWT detailed for
us what is haram, وَمَا لَكُمْ أَلَّا تَأْكُلُوا
مِمَّا ذُكَّرَ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَقُدْ فَصَّلَ لَكُمْ
مَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ and why don't you eat
from that upon which Allah's name was mentioned,
when Allah had detailed for you what He
had forbidden for you.
So he's arguing that the default should be,
in fact, permissibility based on these evidences.
Anyway, going back to the position of the
majority, which is what I want you to
remember at this stage of your learning, the
position in the madhhab is that the default
of impermissibility applies to inviolable people, their life,
their property, their honor, marital relationships, and meats,
which means what?
Means you do not base permissibility on suspicion.
You base impermissibility on suspicion.
If there is suspicion, refrain.
When there is suspicion, refrain.
For other things, when there is suspicion, proceed.
Here, when there is suspicion, refrain.
For other things, when there is certainty of
impermissibility, of course, refrain.
But if you don't have that certainty of
impermissibility, you don't need to refrain, and you
don't need to base your precaution on mere
suspicion.
Now, another qaeda that is very relevant to
this one, and in fact, you see this
qaeda, how important it is, this whole qaeda
can be subsumed under the following one, and
I'll show you how.
So, the next qaeda is the default in
acts of worship is tawqeef.
Tawqeef means what?
Restriction.
Restriction until revelation proves otherwise.
And the default in customs is what?
Permissibility until proven otherwise.
So, when it comes because whatever it is
that you do, it's either an act of
devotion or not an act of devotion.
It's either an act of devotion to God,
that is ibadat, not an act of devotion
to God, you know, that's whatever it is
that you do in your life.
So, do
you need a text of revelation to prove
the permissibility of certain customs, dealings, business transactions?
No, you need something to prove the impermissibility.
So, the default is permissibility.
And when it comes to ibadat, you know,
could you make up an ibadah yourself?
So, the default here is restriction pending a
permission from God, you know, a permission from
Allah.
So, so the
default in our customs is permissibility until a
factor emerges that restricts it.
No practice is sanctioned or approved except what
is mentioned in our shara.
So, Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen said it's more comprehensive
to say now give you an expression
that will make this qa'idah subsume the
other one under it, you know, the first
one under it.
So, the default ruling concerning acts of devotion
is restriction until the revelation proves otherwise.
In all other matters, not things and objects
only, not customs only like in this qa
'idah, not things and objects only like in
the previous qa'idah.
So, in all other matters will combine what?
Things, objects, customs, dealings, transactions, anything that's not
an act of devotion, anything that's not ibadah,
anything else is permissible.
Anything else is permissible.
So, now I am going to read this.
This is by Imam Taqiyyid Ibn Uthaymeen, and
it is long.
I'm just going to read it verbatim because
it's very helpful and very powerful.
He said, through examining the foundations of the
sharia, through examining the foundations of the sharia,
we realize that acts of worship which Allah
has commanded or loved can only be affirmed
through revelation, can only be affirmed through revelation.
As for customs, they encompass what people commonly
practice in the world of the affairs, and
their default is non-prohibition.
So, the default is non-prohibition unless Allah
declares them unlawful, declares them unlawful.
This is because command and prohibition constitute sharia,
and worship must be commanded.
What has not been proven to be commanded
cannot be judged as an act of worship,
and what has not been proven among customary
practices to be forbidden cannot be judged as
prohibited.
For this reason, Ahmad and other scholars of
the people of hadith stated the default in
acts of worship is tawqif, and nothing is
legislated unless Allah commands it.
Otherwise, we fall into the purview of the
verse, so if we do not, if we
start to invent acts of worship, we fall
under the verse that says, or do they
have partners who have legislated for them from
their religion, that which Allah has not authorized,
that which Allah has not authorized.
As for customs, he says their default is
exemption, so nothing is prohibited except what Allah
forbids.
Otherwise, we fall under the verse, say, have
you considered what Allah has sent down as
provision for you, and you have made some
of it unlawful and some lawful.
So, Allah is rebuking them for declaring some
of the provisions that he has sent down
unlawful, you know, like al-bahira, al-sa
'iba, al-wasila, al-hamd.
So, this is what it is, like the
idea here is that when it comes to
ibadah, no one knows what Allah loves, no
one knows how he, you know, how Allah
wants to be worshipped, except Allah and whomever
received a revelation from Allah subhanahu wa ta
'ala.
We will discuss this a little bit more
next time, but, you know, that is basically
the principle here, the maqam here.
And when it comes to al-adat, customary,
basically, actions and transactions, dealings, and so on,
the sharia came basically to provide guidelines and
to prevent you from falling off the cliff,
and to keep you, you know, within the
limits of wholesome.
But the sharia did not come to tell
you how to build the bridges, or how
to treat, you know, tuberculosis, or how to
do so many other things that will be
figured out by man.
So, this maqam does not mean neglecting to
seek Allah's ruling, of course, you know, the
fact that everything is permissible until proven otherwise
does not mean that you should not be
trying to learn what is halal and haram,
because Allah has a ruling about every human
action.
So, every human action has one of the
five rulings, according to the majority, has a
value, a legal value, has a legal slash
moral value in the sight of Allah.
Everything, every human action, you know, you're looking
at me now, this has a legal value.
You're leaning forward, this has a legal value.
You're reclining, this has a legal value.
What's the legal value?
Ibah?
Okay.
So, it's neutral, but it is a legal
value.
I mean, there is certainly a discussion about
whether this is part of the taqalif or
not, but the idea here is everything has
a legal value.
So, we can say something about everything you're
doing, you know, the bagels that you ate
this morning, and everything.
So, you need to seek Allah, you know,
seek knowledge, yes.
Now, there is a principle that goes under
this principle that's a sub-subsidiary principle.
Al-aslif al-waqud al-hillu wal-ibaha
wal-aslif al-shurut fiha al-sihha, which
means the default in contracts is validity and
permissibility, and the default in their conditions or
stipulations is soundness.
So, contracts are valid by default.
Shurut, conditions in the contract, are valid by
default.
Now, you know, to be honest with you,
like in the mu'tamid of the madhhab, you
know, you can't have, like, you can have
one condition, but you can't have multiple conditions.
The scholars of the madhhab did not always
apply this qaeda the way it is basically
phrased here.
But despite that, al-madhhab al-hanbali is
one of two madhhabs that are most accommodating
to different new transactions, and different hanbalis and
malikis, most accommodating.
I would say, you know, that hanbali, hanbalism,
or the hanbali madhhab is even more accommodating
than the maliki madhhab.
So, the most accommodating of stipulations and contracts
in particular would be the hanbali madhhab.
Despite that, you know, the qaeda was not
always applied, and I'm not saying that it's
right or wrong, but it was not always
applied.
One who basically was fully committed to this
qaeda is al-imam Taqayddin ibn Taymiyyah.
He was fully committed to this qaeda, and
that is why nathariyat al-iqood, or the
theory of contracts, of ibn Taymiyyah is subject
of study nowadays, has been for decades, and
that's why, you know, Dr. Ali Jama, who
used to be the mufti of Egypt in
the past, he had overseen the compilation of
a three-volume book on ibn Taymiyyah's theory
of contracts.
So, he was fully committed to the idea
that, you know, you could make whatever contract
that you have, and you could make whatever
stipulations, until proven otherwise, and most of the
time he would find no problems with newly
emerged contracts.
And al-shaykh al-burnu, obviously, shows you
the flexibility and universality of fiqh based on
this qaeda.
So, if we use this qaeda, he says
that this principle also applies to new types
of contracts and financial transactions, provided they are
free from riba, jahala, gharar, and darar.
Can you try to remember this?
Riba, usually, jahala, ambiguity, gharar, undue risk-taking,
or uncertainty, gharar is harm.
So, if you find, if you're examining a
contract to see if it is halal or
not, look for riba, jahala, gharar, and dharar.
Look for usury, look for ambiguity, look for
undue risk-taking, which is excessive speculation, undue
risk-taking, excessive speculation, and the dharar, look
for harm.
And if you don't find the riba, jahala,
gharar, and dharar, the contract is likely fine.
The contract is fine.
So when it comes to, so this is
basically, when it comes to customs, when it
comes to things, you know, the default is
permissibility.
And I do have examples, but we are
not gonna be able to go over all
of the examples, but I, you know, the
footnotes are full of examples to clarify things
for you.
But the concept of that permissibility as the
default for things and objects and customs and
so on and so forth is a very
valuable principle or maxim for the flexibility of,
and the applicability of the sharia, flexibility, adaptability,
applicability of the sharia in different circumstances, in
different eras, in different circumstances.
The sharia is capable of adapting and of
providing guidance within very different circumstances.
The world that we live in today is
very different from the world that we, that
they lived in in the seventh century after
hijra, in the first century after hijra, and
during the time of the Prophet, there were
huge differences just from the time of the
Prophet, to the time of Umar, that required
some adaptations.
We've talked before about how Umar, used to
collect the day from the people in the
same registry, not in the sense of blood
relatives, in the sense of paternal kin, he
used to collect it from the people in
the same registry.
And the reason is, you know, people are
not living together anymore.
So if someone, you know, travels to Al
-Kufa and kills by mistake someone in Al
-Kufa, for instance, by the time we get
to collect the day from his tribe in
Yemen, that would be, you know, a couple
of years, that is unfair to the victim,
and to the, or, you know, the family
of the victim.
So things change, and this qaeda is very
valuable.
Now, the other qaeda, the other part, or
the other shatr, or the other half of
the qaeda, is also extremely valuable.
Valuable to preserve the deen, and to protect
the sanctity of the deen, which is, which
part?
Al-Asad fil Ibadat al-Tawqeef, Al-Asad
fil Ibadat al-Hadr.
The default ruling concerning acts of devotion is
restriction until we receive revelation.
Restriction until we receive revelation about them.
So, there should be no disagreement about this
among Muslims.
We cannot be inventing acts of worship.
Who are we to invent?
Lahum shuraaka shara'a walahum min al-deenin
malami'atihi Allah Or do they have partners
to prescribe for them in matters of religion
that which Allah has authorized, that which Allah
has not authorized?
So there should be no disagreement about this
among us Muslims.
The Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, said, man
a'ala fi amrina hadha malaysa minhum fawarad
Whoever invents in this affair of ours, or
introduces into this affair of ours something that's
not from it, shall be rejected.
And in another hadith, he said, man a
'amila a'malan, in a Muslim's report, he said,
man a'amila a'malan laysa alayhi amruna fawarad
Whoever does an action that is, you know,
not in agreement or not in accordance with
our affairs will be rejected.
So the idea that bid'ah should be
reprehensible is a reprehensible thing.
The idea that innovation in the deen is
a reprehensible thing should be intuitive.
You know, it should be intuitive.
You know, why should it not be intuitive?
Even before the revelation, like who are you
to invent an act of worship and to
say Allah likes this?
Like, who told you?
Please tell me.
Like, how are you receiving a revelation from
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and we don't,
we don't know about it?
You know, so if the revelation stopped after
the Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam, no one
can introduce into this deen what is not
established.
Having said that, having said that, daabat al
bid'ah, or to have a regulator, controller,
to like to have a definition of bid
'ah that will not, that is agreed upon
is impossible.
To have a definition of bid'ah that
you will have an agreement on is impossible.
It's impossible even to come up with a
daabat and you know, no matter how much
you try, a daabat that will be universally
applicable for bid'ah and there are, there
will be a gray area.
There will be some gray area.
There will be disagreement, whether this is considered
bid'ah or not bid'ah.
There are some things that we have to
agree on, you know.
So like, for instance, to make, to tell
people to have wuquf, waqf at Arafah in
a different place, you know, or you know,
to have hajj in Sinai, for instance.
Make hajj to, you know, one of the
mountains in Sinai.
This should be, you know, this should be
a no brainer.
There are certain things that we will, we
should agree on.
Otherwise we don't have a deen, you know.
So, but there are certain things also that
we should agree on that should not be
a bid'ah.
And we have examples from, you know, Jama'
al-Quran and the fact that we have
like a Saturday class every Saturday morning here.
And so there are many, many things that
we're able to agree on on this side.
Many things we're not able to agree on
on that side.
There will always be a gray area in
the middle.
How large is that gray area?
It would require like honest, genuine, friendly, civil
discourse among people to, you know, limit the
gray area so that, you know, basically we
try to chip off from here, from this
side, chip off from this side until the
gray area between us is much smaller than
it is nowadays, or than it is between,
you know, competing factions.
So next time, inshallah, we will try to
cover that, you know, we'll try to cover
that part of the qaeda, which is about
al-asr fil-ibadat al-tawqif, or the
default concerning acts of devotion is restriction until
we receive revelation.
And we will talk about dhabit al-bid
'ah, or, you know, a good definition for
bid'ah and how to apply it.
Certainly, it will still be a qaeda al
-fiqh class, so we will not get into,
you know, bid'ah and, you know, except
through the lens of al-qaeda al-fiqh,
except through the lens of al-qaeda al
-fiqh.
Kul quwari hala astaghfirullah alayhi wa sallam, inshallah,
astaghfirullah alayhi wa sallam, astaghfirullah alayhi wa sallam.