Hatem al-Haj – QWD029 Coherence of Sharia – QWD029 Coherence of Sharia – Subsidiary Maxims Under Maxim 3

AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss various legal maxims and sections related to the legal process, including the subsidiary maxims and applications of the third maxim, the concept of equal retribution, and the legal prescribed punishments for damages. They emphasize the importance of preemption and the need for people to commit to their beliefs, as well as the importance of avoiding harm and avoiding liability for actions or events that cause harm. The speakers also discuss various factors contributing to public harm, including the presence of harms in a residential area, the importance of avoiding public harm, and the use of gutter-pairing devices to prevent damage to individuals and homes. They stress the importance of respecting the wishes of a donor and avoiding harm to oneself and others, and emphasize the need to act with prudence and remove harmful structures to avoid harm.
AI: Summary ©
We can start.
You've said two seconds.
Okay.
So, let's start our class.
Um, today we are going over.
Subsidiary maxims and applications for.
Which for the 3rd.
So, we're done with introductions was the 1st
section.
We said that we will have 4 sections
introductions would be the 1st section.
The major legal maxims would be the 2nd
section.
And the major legal maxims are 5.
And then the 3rd section will be the
minor legal maxims.
And the last section, which is the 4th
will be a.
Or the legal regulators.
Uh, controllers regulators, um.
Which are like, you know, sort of minor
minor maxims.
Um.
The subsidiary maxims and applications of.
Is the is the 3rd maxim is.
There is no harm or reciprocation of harm.
Right.
There is no harm or reciprocation of harm.
Before we talk about the subsidiary maxims, I
just want to tell you that this is
a very important maximum and it is a
very comprehensive maximum.
And it's actually the entire.
So, no doubt it encompasses the entire.
Because the entire is about.
That's what is about.
That's what the Dean is about.
The Dean is about procuring benefits and harms.
Um.
And these benefits, if you think about it
this way, you may, you may think it's
utilitarianism.
It is utilitarianism.
It's religious utilitarianism.
The difference between religious utilitarianism and.
Uh, your good old utilitarianism, uh.
Is what is that we have.
Basically, different set of objectives.
Uh, we have a different worldview, different outlook.
So, we have.
You know, spiritual benefits that we value in
our religious utilitarianism.
Uh, that does not basically.
Hold water in your, uh, conventional, uh, sort
of philosophical.
Uh, utilitarianism as a system of ethics.
But so our religious utilitarianism.
Says that all of the.
Is meant to do 2 things for human
beings.
To bring about benefits, repel and minimize harms.
Um, now this will encompass.
All areas of.
So, what is about.
Equal retribution.
You know.
In equal retribution, you have.
Basically, uh, life.
You know, so it is that.
You know, you, you sentence people to death.
So that the society can live.
So that, you know, murder.
Uh, does not become prevalent in the society.
So that the criminals may be deterred.
So, that's why I use the, the, the,
the sort of genius expression.
In equal retribution, there is life for you.
Life for the society.
Life for everyone else.
The, the, the.
The offender.
Will die.
But the society will live.
Um.
So, the idea of also the prescribed, the
legal prescribed punishments.
To avert harm from societies.
Compensations for damages.
The legislative compensations for damages.
Like, in Egypt, they say.
Which means that we don't accept compensation for
damages.
No, the does accept compensation for damages.
If you damage someone's property.
You compensate them.
Uh, for the damage you caused.
If you want someone, you compensate them.
And so on and so forth.
Uh, returning items for the facts.
You know, which is.
In sales.
In sales, if you find the defect in
your.
Sort of merchandise.
You could return it.
And argue that it is defective.
Options in sales in general.
In sales in general.
To repel harm.
Um.
Marriages if someone.
Marries someone.
And they have not told them.
About.
Like, uh, a major problem.
Uh, there are certain.
Basically criteria for the annulment of marriages.
There are some disagreements within the.
But the concept itself.
Is agreed is agreed upon.
And why is it an element versus divorce?
Because, like, you know, you may retain your
rights.
Your financial rights.
You know, repelling an aggressor.
Um.
Is meant to avert harm.
So, even if you have.
If you have to kill the aggressor.
The physical aggressor.
You're licensed.
Uh, to repel harm.
Uh.
That's the right to preemption.
Isn't this about.
Averting harm from the partners.
Co-owners, you know, the right to pre.
Like, if you, you know, go on a
property.
And your partner wants to sell.
You have first dibs or you are.
Um, you, you have the right to preemption.
Um, that is because.
You know, you, you decided to get into
partnership with him.
But now he's going to bring, bring you
another partner.
Let's say you don't like the other partner.
Let's say the other partner.
Is, you know.
Not suitable.
Uh, to be, to be in partnership with
him.
Or her.
Then you have the right to preemption to
avert harm.
Had interdiction.
Uh, this is the avert harm from the
heirs and the creditors.
Someone who's in debt.
Uh, or, uh, you know, the introduction.
Then we'll, um.
May cause them a little bit of harm.
Uh, but.
You know, the greater harm.
Will be caused to the.
Heirs and the creditors.
If he squanders his wealth.
Uh, Jihad itself.
Isn't that you had.
Meant to, to, uh, avert harm.
Uh, deter harm from the religion.
And where are the affairs of the society?
If people.
Don't, you know, if people are not willing.
To sacrifice for anything.
Then.
Uh, there would be stepped on left and
right.
And no one will, you know.
Um, they will be.
Oppressed to their, their property will be taken.
Their land will be taken.
Um.
And they will suffer in their religious commitment.
And in the world of the affairs.
So.
Um.
They even stipulate the absence of harm in.
You know, permissible acts.
So, for instance, is it permissible.
To use contraceptive pills.
Did they discuss this?
Yes, they did.
Um, so it is.
As long as they don't cause harm.
So, in fact.
It says.
So, it's permissible to drink a permissible medicine.
Um, to, um.
To prevent pregnancy.
Um, if, if, uh.
If safety is assured.
If safety is assured, if there is no
harm.
Or if safety is assured.
Um, so the same applies also.
With regard to as.
They say that if she wants to.
Uh, bring about the.
The period, like, if she wants the period
to come early.
She's allowed to do that.
Also, with that contingency.
That contingency is.
There is no harm.
Safety is assured.
This applies to men as well.
If they want to.
Um, you know, stop.
The like.
It is not permissible as they say.
Uh, to sterilize.
Um, the people, whether it's men or.
Women, so sterilization procedures.
Unless it's medically indicated, unless, you know, the,
the pregnancy would cause great harm to the.
To the person, so.
It's medically indicated, but if it's not medically
indicated, then it's not permissible to sterilize.
But temporary transient.
Prevention of pregnancy for men or women.
Um, they mentioned here, like, uh, like a
drink of camphor, for instance, they, they believe
that it.
You know, if men drink.
Uh, like, like a drink of camphor that
will stop.
Uh, pregnancy anyway.
Uh, I'm not quite sure.
Don't try it.
Uh.
So, uh, there are many applications of manager
mentions many applications.
Uh, the 1st application that the manager mentions
is digging a well.
To dig a well, um, next to a
neighbor as well.
Uh, if if this causes the neighbors will
to dry up.
If you're digging a well to drain the
neighbors.
Well.
Even though you're digging the well in your
property.
So, your neighbor has a well.
And you come within your property and dig
a well.
Near your neighbors well, to drain the water
from your neighbors.
If it does do that, if it drains
up your neighbors, well, they will fill your
well.
They will fill your well, you can't do
that even though it's on your property.
And they here, uh, mentions here.
I report a more self from Abu Dawood.
More self from Abu Dawood, Abu Dawood.
Um.
More so in general, what is, you know,
more so in general is within the tabby.
I reports from the prophets along without mentioning
the.
Companion when a follower 2nd generation reports from
the prophet.
Without mentioning the hobby, the companion 1st generation.
That's called more.
In general.
Are controversial whether they are.
Um, they are, um.
Acceptable or not.
Uh, acceptable or not.
So, some of the scholars feel that should
be acceptable.
And Maliki's feel should be acceptable.
Don't feel that they're always, they're always acceptable.
And the in particular, he had his, uh,
basically.
Formula to, you know, as for.
That would be acceptable.
Uh, but in general, I just want you
when you hear more.
Uh, you know, you tend to dismiss the
more sell right away.
It's not dismissed the right away.
There will be a discussion about it.
Um, so there's more to sell from.
Um.
The prophet said.
The prophet said.
Do not harm each other in digging.
Um.
And then this was defined by, you know,
in digging.
Defined by digging a well close to your
neighbor as well.
Uh, to drain it now.
Causing harm to your neighbor's property.
By, uh, some form of disturbance.
You know, like shaking, uh, or, um.
Founding within your own property pounding within your
own property.
Or even emitting foul smells within your own
property.
Anything that migrates from your property to your
neighbor's property.
Whether it is shaking or foul smells or
whatever.
Would be prevented from doing this within your
own property.
To do what a very time.
To your neighbor.
Uh, and.
He mentions a year.
That.
Somewhere.
Somewhere reports this about himself.
Um, you know, and that's that's, you know.
The honesty of the.
If something is a benefit from the prophets.
They were reported, even if it invites them.
Even if it.
Uh, not.
It's not in their favor.
So, some.
Reports that, uh, you know.
He had.
A tree inside the property of a man
from.
Like, you could own a tree inside the
property of someone.
He owned the palm tree inside the property.
Of a man from.
So, he's coming in and out all the
time and the man gets.
Annoyed.
Uh, by this, because the man lives with
his family on the property.
So, Samara keeps on coming in and out
of the property.
It then to his palm tree.
So, the man, you know, came and complained
to the prophets.
The prophets offer to Samara.
To.
Uh, sell it.
Or to donate it.
And Samara refused.
And.
The prophet.
Eventually, when Samara refused every option.
Set to him.
Your cause and harm.
And he said to the Ansari.
Go ahead and uproot history.
Uproot history.
Um.
So, anyway.
And Samara is the one who reported this.
And in similar cases where harm is caused.
People should be prevented.
From causing harm.
So.
We have.
You know, the prohibition of.
The prohibition of.
Excessive speculation.
The prohibition of.
Monopoly.
The prohibition of.
Even the.
Prohibition of.
You know.
It means.
Inequity deception.
Um.
So, when you sell.
When you have a haggler and you sell
to them at a rate.
And a non haggler and you sell to
them at a different rate.
Is this allowable?
Ahmed says, no, you can't really do this.
You can't sell.
At two different rates.
The hagglers negotiators and non negotiators.
Um.
Because that.
Is harm.
To the non haggler or the non negotiator.
Um.
So.
And this, this is what.
This is the prevent harm.
Prevent harm from people who are.
You know.
Not savvy.
Um.
So, in the 30th.
Uh.
Or.
Uh.
He said.
I'm not.
Yeah.
We all.
The translation for this would be partners and
properties rights.
and benefits are obligated to bear the necessary
expenses, maintenance and other related costs that affect
the shared entity.
So you own a property, something happens to
this property and you need to do something.
You will be compelled to participate with your
partner in the expenses if this is necessary
to bring about an essential benefit or repel
harm.
You are required.
So like you share a building with, and
this used to happen in Egypt a lot.
You share a building and one of the
co-owners wants to have an elevator.
Are you required to participate?
You may say no, you're not required because
this is not an essential benefit and it
is not to repel harm, but if you
share a wall with your neighbor, share a
wall, and this wall falls down, are you
compelled to rebuild the wall with your neighbor?
Yes, you're compelled to rebuild the wall with
your neighbor.
Let's say he wants to have an elevator.
In this case, the rule is you're not
required to participate, however, you're not allowed to
use the elevator until you participate.
You're not allowed to use the elevator until
you participate.
And this is mentioned in Al-Qaeda al
-Rajabiyya 76, number 76.
He says, owners of specific property or benefit,
if they need to avert harm or maintain
a benefit, one is compelled to agree with
the other according to the correct view of
the mazhab.
Another opinion states if one can independently avert
the harm, they should do so without compelling
the other, if they can independently avert the
harm.
But this here, you cannot independently avert the
harm.
This is a shared wall between you.
You will be compelled here to rebuild the
wall with your neighbor.
However, if the other wishes to benefit from
what their partner has done, they can be
prevented until they pay their share of the
expenses.
If they need to create a new benefit,
there is no compulsion.
There is no compulsion.
So the example of the elevator, in the
example of the elevator, it's not an essential
benefit.
You know, we've been using the building for
two years, for three years, for 20 years.
Now we want an elevator.
Okay, you know, you can have it, but
I'm not going to participate.
But if I don't participate, I don't use
it until I participate.
Okay, now let us, so this is just
basically an introduction to the subsidiary maxims and
the applications that we will discuss under the
subsidiary maxims of al-Qaeda al-Thalitha, the
third maxim, la darar wa la darar.
There should be no harm or reciprocation of
harm.
La darar wa la darar.
No harm and no reciprocation
of harm.
Okay, now we will have 10 qawa'id
to go over, 10 qawa'id to go
over.
They will look to you the same, but
they are different.
And our job in the next couple of
sessions will be to show the distinctions between
those qawa'id, because there is qadr mushtarak,
there is overlap, there is common degree and
overlap between those qawa'id.
They are all children of this qaeda, la
darar wa la darar.
So it is expected that they will have
some commonalities between them.
And just to have a bird's view of
all the qawa'id, let's just write them
all here.
Darar yudfa biqadr al-imkan.
Harm is to be repelled.
Yudfa is different from yurfa.
Yurfa is to be removed.
Yudfa is to be repelled.
So this is harm before it happens, is
to be repelled.
Yudfa is different from yurfa.
Yudfa is to be repelled, biqadr al-imkan,
as much as possible, as much as possible.
So harm is to be removed as much
as possible.
That's the first one.
Then al-darar yuzal or yurfa.
Then al-darar yuzal or yurfa.
Darar is harm.
Harm is to be removed.
Here it already happened.
You want to remove it.
Then al-darar la yuzalu bimithlihi.
Al-darar la yuzal bimithlihi.
So harm is not to be removed by
equal harm.
Equal harm.
Then al-darar al-ashad yuzalu bil-akhaf.
Al-darar al-ashad yuzalu bil-akhaf.
Al-darar is harm.
Ashad is greater or what?
Yeah, greater.
Greater harm is to be removed.
To be removed by the lesser
harm or by a lesser harm.
A lesser harm.
So sometimes you cannot remove harm without harm.
So in this case, we have two qawad.
The first one that we mentioned is that
you don't remove harm by equal harm.
It's useless.
It's equal harm.
But you remove harm by a lesser harm.
Which is close to yukhtaru ahwan ash-sharrayn.
But there is a difference that we will
show, inshallah, when we discuss them.
Yukhtar, to be selected.
Ahwan, the lesser.
Ash-sharrayn, of the two evils.
The lesser of two evils is chosen.
The lesser of two evils is chosen.
Then, itha ta
'aradat mafsadatani.
This will be the next one.
So when mafsadatani, two evils or two harms,
ta'aradat, conflicted, itha, if ru'ya, considered,
a'zamuhumma, the greater, darar, in harm, bertikab,
by performing or by committing, akhafihimma,
the lesser.
So when two harms conflict, the greater harm
is mitigated by committing the lesser harm.
Then, yutahammal ad-darar al-aam li-daf
'a ad-darar al-khaas.
Yutahammal ad-darar al-aam li-daf'a
ad-darar al-khaas.
Yutahammal means what?
To be tolerated.
Ad-darar al-aam, public harm.
Li-daf'a, to repel.
Ad-darar al-khaas, private harm.
So you prevent public harm.
I'm sorry.
Sorry.
Yes, of course.
Of course.
It's the opposite.
You repel public harm by tolerating private harm.
You repel public harm by tolerating private harm.
If you have to basically make a road
and it has to go through a residential
area and you really need to, you can
tolerate private harm.
But in this case, you will have to
compensate the people.
And that is something that we will talk
about compensation here.
Then the next one is dar al-mafasid
awla min jalb al-manafa.
Dar al-mafasid awla min jalb al-manafa.
So dar is to repel.
Mafasid harms or evils.
Corruption, I guess.
Awla takes precedence.
Min jalb from procuring benefit.
So to translate this, repelling harm takes precedence
over bringing benefits.
Like those of you who practice medicine.
Don't they teach you first to do no
harm?
First to do no harm.
Then the next one.
But keep in mind, dar al-mafasid awla
min jalb al-manafa.
We will have a contingency that we will
address when we come to talk about this
principle, which is a very important contingency.
We're presuming here that the mafsada and manfa
'a are of equal significance.
But sometimes, sometimes, they're not of equal significance.
Therefore, this qahida does not always apply.
So you don't repel.
You don't basically forego a great benefit, a
great benefit to avoid a small harm.
No, you tolerate the small harm to procure
a great benefit.
Okay.
Which means when a cause for action and
a cause for abstention conflict, which one will
you give precedence to?
Cause for action or cause for abstention?
Abstention.
Except if the cause for action is of
greater significance.
The final one is, Whoever
destroys something for personal benefit is liable, but
if destroyed to avert harm, there is no
liability.
There is no liability.
Whoever destroys something to avert harm.
So, like, a camel attacks you, and you
kill the camel.
Are you liable?
No.
But you find the camel, and you're so
hungry, like, muttarr, to eat it, and you
eat it.
Are you liable?
Yes.
Yes.
You're liable for what?
You're not sinful.
You're liable for compensation.
So you have to compensate.
In the first case, do you have to
compensate?
No.
Camel attacks you, you kill the camel, no
compensation.
You eat the camel because you're hungry, you
compensate.
Are you sinful?
No, you're not sinful because you're muttarr.
Okay.
So, let's take, harm is to be repelled
as much as possible.
Harm is to be repelled as much as
possible.
So, what do we mean by harm is
to be repelled as much as possible?
It means that as much as possible refers
to what?
Refers to harm, or refers to the means
by which you repel the harm?
Refers to both, both.
So, meaning what?
All harm is to be prevented, but if
you cannot, then you minimize it.
So, because many times you can't repel or
remove all harm.
So, in this case, your obligation would be
to minimize it.
And harm is to be repelled as much
as possible.
As much as possible also refers to the
means by which you repel the harm.
Whatever means possible.
Lawful, possible means you have.
You use them to repel the harm.
So, examples of repelling harm as much as
possible.
Jihad is one of them.
Equal retribution is one of them.
Hudud would be one of them.
And we said the physical aggressor.
We have the right to push away the
physical aggressor.
But, which is the as-sa'il.
That physical aggressor as-sa'il.
The one, the person who is assaulting you,
attacking you.
They say clearly that if you, if he
will desist by like sort of verbal warnings.
You are not allowed to strike them.
You are not allowed to hit them.
If speech will suffice, you are not allowed
to strike.
And if striking by a stick suffices, you
are not allowed to strike by a sword.
And if striking by a sword, like the
way they do this.
Like the way you should basically arrest a
criminal.
If you have to shoot them, you shoot
them in the leg.
You don't shoot them in the heart.
So, you shoot them in the leg to
basically restrain them.
And so on.
So, you try to do this as much
as you can.
We are talking here about al-daf'a
or al-raf'a.
We are talking about al-daf'a.
Al-darar yudf'a biqadr al-imkan.
Harm is to be repelled, not removed.
We are presuming here, this is the first
qaeda.
So, we are going like in a chronological
manner.
We are presuming that darar has not occurred
yet.
But you are trying to repel the harm
before it occurs.
Yudf'a biqadr al-imkan.
And should we always seek to repel it
before it happens?
Of course.
Because they say al-daf'u khayrun wa
'aysar min al-raf'a.
Al-daf'a khayrun wa'aysar min al
-raf'a.
Daf'a is to repel.
The harm is always easier and better than
raf'a.
Which is to remove the harm.
Because once the harm occurs, it will be
more costly.
More costly.
So, if we have means to prevent rulers
from tyranny, it will be much less costly
than to basically remove them afterwards.
Then, okay, so that's the physical aggressor part.
The application of the physical aggressor.
There is the application of shafa'a also.
Shafa'a is basically the right to preemption.
That is to repel harm.
But in the shafa'a, whatever price you
get from the market, I will have to
honor that price.
So, I can't tell you I have the
right to preemption, then sell me your part
at whatever price I determine.
I will have to basically honor the prices
in the market that you will be getting.
Zakah may be delayed if you expect harm.
If you need the money for your sustenance,
and it is zakah due date.
You have your zakah due date today.
Zakah due date is today.
And you have $2,000 in zakah.
But you have in two weeks to pay
your rent.
And you will not have the money for
your rent.
Do you wait?
You wait.
You wait.
You defer your zakah payment, and you pay
your rent.
Because that would be a harm.
Sadaqah is a testament of one's faith.
Sadaqah is a burhan in Islam.
Disambiguation or until there is no harm.
Until there is no harm.
Sadaqah is extremely important in Islam.
However, could you be sinful and given sadaqah?
Yes.
If your family needs it, you're sinful.
So, in Egypt they say, اللَّ يَحْتَاجُ الْبَيْتِ
يَحْرَمْهَا الْقَامَةِ But that's not always accurate.
Whatever your household needs is haram for the
mosque.
Haram to give to the mosque.
Anyway.
But that's the concept anyway.
And many of the common wisdoms that they
have in Muslim countries should not be dismissed
because they have some roots.
So, you should not dismiss them.
You should not accept them without thought.
And you should not dismiss them without thought.
Often they are distorted.
They're just corrupted.
But they still have some justification.
Now, given it would be sinful if it
results in neglecting the sustenance of one's dependent,
harming one's self, or one's creditors, or one's
guarantor.
Harming one's creditor, one's guarantor.
If you borrow money and you go out
and give charity and give gifts to people,
no, please pay your creditor back before you
go out and act charitable and generous.
And the same applies to the guarantor.
So, if you borrow money and someone guarantees
payment on your behalf, and you go out
and give charity, this can cause harm to
your guarantor.
Because if you're unable to pay, they will
be required to pay in your place.
So, you don't do that.
You basically don't put your guarantor and cause
harm to your guarantor.
That's why they say, وَمَنْ صَدَّقَ بِمَا يَنقُصُ
مَعُونَةً تَلْزَمُهُ كَمَعُونَةِ زَوْجَ أَوْ قَرِيبًا أَسِيمًا لِحَدِيثِ
كَفَى بِالْمَرْءِ يَثْمَنْ أَن يُضَيِّعَ مَنْ يَقُوتُ They
cite here the hadith of, it's enough sin
for a man to neglect those under his
care or to neglect his dependents.
Then, إِلَّا أَن يُوَافِقَ هُوَ عِيَالُهُ عَلَى الْإِيثَارِ
فَهُوَ أَفْضَلٌ لِلْقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى وَيَوْثِرُونَ عَلَى أَنفُسِهِمْ وَلَوْ
كَانَ بِهِ خَصَاصًا Unless your family members agree
with you on ethar, basically altruism, this altruism,
if you have little and you donate the
little that you have, if everybody is on
board and they agree with you, then you
can do that.
Like your family members are happy with donating
to the neighbor even though they need it
themselves, then you are allowed to do this
because in this case it would be their
consent, you know, based on their consent.
Then he says it's disliked for a pregnant
or a nursing woman to fast if they
fear harm to themselves or their child.
It is disliked for a pregnant woman, you
know.
Our religion is very sensible and very balanced,
very moderate.
It doesn't really appreciate, it doesn't appreciate extremism,
but it also does not appreciate thoughtlessness.
It is not meant to be a societal
pact.
It is meant to procure benefits for the
people and repel harms.
So if someone feels, you know, if like
a woman feels, no, I will be able
to do it and she causes harm, you
know, she's breastfeeding, for instance, and she's seeing
that her milk is diminishing because she insists
to fast, then that's disliked.
That's not heroic or anything.
That's just, you know, bad religiosity.
Then a muttar is permitted to consume someone
else's property to preserve their life, but they
are liable, as we said, because we said,
يُتْفَعْ بِقَدْرِ الْإِمْكَانِ So we did repel it,
بِقَدْرِ الْإِمْكَانِ You can eat that camel or
you can eat that sheep.
So we did repel harm from you, but
قَدْرِ الْإِمْكَانِ does not mean that you're not
liable financially.
You should be liable.
It's impermissible for the ruler to appoint, you
know, this is a good example also.
It's impermissible for the ruler to appoint a
corrupt individual to oversee an orphan's property.
Like if you have an orphan and you
need to have a manager for the property,
can the ruler appoint a corrupt individual, a
fasiq, to manage the orphan's property?
Of course not.
It's not allowed.
What if the endower, الواقف, appoints a fasiq
individual, appoints a corrupt individual?
So الواقف is the one who had the
property and is the one who made the
endowment.
Should we respect the wishes of الواقف, the
donor?
It's his money.
Yes, you should.
But then if he puts this endowment in
the name of an orphan, his child for
instance, he dies and he makes an endowment
for his children and he appoints someone who
is wicked.
What are we going to do now?
Are we going to respect his wishes because
it's his money?
Or are we going to basically give
precedence to the right of the orphan?
We're going to try to do both because
that is the meaning of بقدر الامكان, as
much as possible.
As much as possible here, I want to
honor the right of the endower and I
want to prevent or avert harm from the
orphan.
So what they say here is you keep
him and you add an overseer.
Keep the manager and add an overseer.
Or sometimes also someone can appoint a person
and they become wicked.
They were righteous, they become wicked.
In this case, keep them, add an overseer.
So that you honor the right, you know,
of the endower.
So the final thing under this قعدة is
it's disliked for someone who cannot endure hardship
or is unaccustomed to it to reduce provisions
below his needs, to reduce his provisions below
his needs or their provisions below their needs.
Like, you know, most of the, like, you're
not Abu Bakr to donate all of your
money and you're not Omar to donate half
of your money.
Most of the time, people who do these
things, they get like excited and they do
things of that nature and they are not
there yet.
They become regretful afterwards.
They become regretful afterwards.
So there are, there is a statement here
from Maunat ul-Innuha that's very beautiful.
So maybe I will read parts of it
because it's very, it's very powerful, very beautiful.
He says, This is one of the Mu'tamad
books of the Hanbali Madhhab.
It's disliked for someone who cannot endure hardship
or is unaccustomed to hardship to reduce their
provisions below what is sufficient for their needs.
نص عليه means what?
Explicitly stated by Imam Ahmad.
When they say نص عليه, it means explicitly
stated by Imam Ahmad.
Did they allow him to borrow money to
give a gift for his, But Imam Ahmad
allowed him to borrow money to give a
gift to a relative on their wedding.
So Imam bin Taymiyyah said this shows that
borrowing for silat al-rahm to join one's
kin is permissible according to Imam Ahmad.
And certainly you're borrowing money that you will
be able to pay back.
You're borrowing money that you'll be able to
pay back.
But if you feel altruistic and charitable, and
you feel that your family member is having
a wedding tomorrow, and you borrow a little
bit of money to buy them a gift,
then that's not a big deal.
That's not a problem.
Ibn Aqeel said, Ibn Aqeel is one of
the finest Hanbalis, in terms of, certainly Ibn
Aqeel had his issues with Aqeedah matters and
issues of that nature.
But Ibn Aqeel was a genius, a very
brilliant Hanbali, and a very prolific writer.
An extremely prolific writer.
Maybe one of the most prolific in our
history.
So Ibn Aqeel says, by Allah, أُقْسِمُوا بِاللَّهِ
لَوْ عَبَسَ الزَّمَانُ فِي وَجْهِكَ مَرًّا لَوْ عَبَسَ
فِي وَجْهِكَ أَهْلُكَ وَجِيرَانُكَ By Allah, if difficult
times frown upon you once, your own family
and neighbors will frown upon you.
So he's saying that, you know, try to
keep some of your money.
Because if hard times frown upon you once,
your family and neighbors will always frown upon
you.
Then he also mentioned, he also quoted Ibn
Al-Jawzi in his book Al-Sirr Al
-Masnoon.
He says, Ibn Al-Jawzi says, الأولى أن
يتدخر لحاجة تعرض وأنه قد يتفق له مرفق
فيخرج ما في يده فينقطع مرفقه فيلاقي من
الضراء والذل ما يكون الموت دونه فلا ينبغي
لعاقل أن يعمل بمقتضى الحال الحاضر So he
said, قد يتفق له مرفق فيخرج ما في
يده It's better to save for an unforeseen
need as it may happen that a person
has a source of income for a period
of time so they expand their wealth and
then that source of income is interrupted leaving
them to face hardship and humiliation worse than
death itself Therefore it's unwise for a rational
person to act based solely on present circumstances
And then he said, وقد تزهد خلق كثير
فأخرجوا ما في أيديهم ثم احتاجوا فدخلوا في
مكروهات والحازم من يحفظ ما في يده والإمساك
في حق الكريم جهاد كما أن إخراج ما
في يد البخير جهاد والحاجة تحوج إلى كل
محنة He further remarked, many individuals embraced asceticism
giving away all they owned only to later
fall into need resorting to disliked practices So
after they gave up their wealth they became
poor and then they resorted to suboptimal and
disliked practices things that are not completely wholesome
to recoup So he says, the prudent person
preserves what they have and restraint in a
generous person is a form of striving just
as spending for a miser is a form
of striving Need leads to all forms of
hardship Then he quotes Bishr al-Hafi who
says If I had a single chicken to
support I would fear being a toll collector
on the bridge Sufyan al-Thawri said فَإِنَّهُ
زَمَانٌ مَنَحْتَاجَ فِيهِ كَانَ أَوَّلُ مَا يَبْذُلُ دِينُهُ
أو كان أول ما يبذل دينه Sufyan al
-Thawri said If someone has wealth they should
tie it to the horn of an ox
for this is an era in which when
a person falls into need the first thing
they sacrifice is their religion the first thing
they sacrifice is their religion so if you
have money to protect you from sacrificing your
religion don't give it up all and then
sacrifice your religion then get into suboptimal and
disliked practices or even outright haram practices anyway
so these are just some of the wisdoms
of some of the great scholars in this
regard that is not basically to condone miserliness
or to encourage stinginess of course not but
that is to act with prudence so that
you don't befall yourself into hardship and then
if you fall into hardship you have no
guarantee you don't know how you will be
like in times of need so you don't
put yourself in a fitna, in a trial
and then test yourself don't try to test
yourself because often times people fail the second
here is al-darar yuzal harm must be
removed the first one the first subsidiary maxim
was to be repelled harm did not occur
yet you are trying to repel it before
it occurs the second one is al-darar
yuzal harm must be removed so if harm
cannot be prevented and it occurs, efforts must
be directed toward removing it there are so
many applications as we said, compensations for the
straight property that is removed after harm occurred
options in sales, that's remover after harm has
occurred to remove harmful structures to remove harmful
structures such as gutters and canopies so like
sabat is a canopy if you have if
you want, if this is a pathway and
this is your wall, this is a neighbor's
wall and there is a pathway between your
wall and your neighbor's wall and you decide
to build a canopy here, it's called sabat
you decide to build a canopy if this
canopy is low enough that it causes inconvenience
to the pedestrians you have to deconstruct it
you have to remove the canopy if you
have a gutter that is basically pouring water
on people you will be forced to remove
your gutter what if the pathway is low
and over time over time like accumulation of
dust or whatever the pathway becomes higher and
then the canopy is causing nuisance and inconvenience
to the pedestrians but when you built it
it was fine it met the code, whatever
it was high enough you will still be
forced to remove it because there is now
no harm harm has to be removed harm
has to be removed now another example if
you begin a prayer with an imam and
the imam prolongs the prayer and he will
cause you harm you are getting really tired
you have a train to catch whatever it
is and the imam is prolonging the prayer
beyond what is customary are you allowed to
separate and finish your prayer yes, you are
allowed to separate from the congregation and finish
your prayer so that you can catch work,
catch your train, etc.
and this will not invalidate your prayer if
someone borrows coins this is a good example
here, we will make this the final example
in this session if someone don't overdo it
don't be doing this tomorrow in the masjid
and make a scene but if someone borrows
coins and then he says and he doesn't
say money in general because gold and silver
cannot be prohibited the circulation of gold and
silver cannot be prohibited by the sultan but
the ones that we have nowadays these are
called falus so they have coins that are
not gold and silver that were used as
currency not gold currency not silver currency now,
if the sultan decided to stop the circulation
prohibit the circulation of a particular coin particular
currency you bought you borrowed money you borrowed
let's say 100 of those coins 100 coins
the sultan basically stopped the circulation of those
coins this is payment time payment time time
you have the 100 coins you have 100
coins and in general the rule is for
payment the exact same not in value but
the exact same property that you borrowed if
you return it the exact same then that's
fine but the sultan prohibited the circulation so
if you pay the exact same back the
creditor the lender that would be a big
loss for the lender so what do we
do here?
we say the value we say the value
the value of the 100 coins now, can
you apply the same thing apply the same
thing nowadays with the depreciation of currency like
you borrow 100 egyptian pounds and then it
gets devalued no, no, no, I shouldn't do
this it gets devalued a lot, devalued a
lot now the sultan did not prohibit the
circulation but it became quite devalued it's time
for you to pay the hanbalis will say
you pay you pay the same 100 they
don't care about the devaluation of the currency
they don't care about the devaluation of the
currency qesad or devaluation of the currency who
cares about devaluation of the currency in case
of we're not talking about just simple devaluation
we're talking about a currency that lost like
95% of its value like a huge
sort of devaluation, depreciation of the value the
two disciples of Imam Abu Hanifa they said
he's required to pay the value not the
exact same and that is the position that
the assembly of muslim jurists of america takes
nowadays when you have extreme devaluation when you
have extreme devaluation of currency whether it was
muakhar sadaq deferred dowry whether it was like
a loan whatever it is then we say
that there will be an arbitration committee to
get to find the point of compromise
that will honor the right of the lender
and the right of the borrower so we
will not basically dismiss the devaluation of the
currency but we're talking here about scenarios where
there is severe devaluation of currency severe devaluation
of currency that's it and why are we
doing this?
to repel harm to remove harm from the
creditor from the lender and
and and and and
and