Hatem al-Haj – QWD030 Coherence of Sharia – Subsidiary Maxims Under Maxim 3 – Part 2

AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the three legal maxim of Allah's third rule, which is to avoid harm and remove harm from individuals, and the importance of acknowledging human well-being and well-being. They stress the need for individuals to be aware of their rights and allow others to harvest their crops. They also discuss the default position for divorce and the importance of prioritizing one's obligations and avoiding harms. They emphasize the need for priority and engagement in addressing task requests and issues, and stress the importance of prioritization in managing one's time.
AI: Summary ©
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious,
the Most Merciful Peace be upon the Messenger
of Allah, his family and companions and upon
those who follow him to proceed So today,
God willing, we are still talking about the
third rule, the third legal maxim, there should
be no harm or reciprocation of harm.
This is the third legal maxim.
We will have one more session, God willing,
on this maxim and then we will move
on to the fourth and and you know,
the fourth will be or hardship begets facility
and then the fifth will be authoritative and
then we will go over the minor legal
maxims and then the regulators So we may
be halfway through because the two other sections
are a little bit shorter than than the
first two sections the first one was the
introductions and the second one is the major
legal maxims and the major legal maxims is
basically the largest section particularly the first two
were even larger because the deeds are but
by their intentions is a very large one
so we may be able to finish this
before Anyway is the qaeda that we will
go over today harm is not removed by
an equal harm, harm is not removed by
an equal harm, so remember last time we
said harm must be removed and then this
qaeda will come to control and regulate the
previous qaeda because if harm has to be
removed then we have to ask ourselves how
do we remove harm and at what expense
are we removing the harm, at what expense?
Can we remove harm by an equal harm?
No because that would not make sense, you're
replacing harm by an equal harm and a
for sure right you cannot remove harm by
a larger, greater harm, so then you cannot
but this qaeda will tell us this will
tell us that you cannot remove harm by
an equal harm or a greater harm and
then the next qaeda will basically tell us
that you can remove harm by a lesser
harm now some of the applications of this
qaeda it's permissible it's impermissible for a person
to prevent flooding of their land by flooding
their neighbour's land so basically if your land
is getting flooded and you redirect the water
to your neighbour's land that is impermissible because
that's removing harm by an equal harm a
person in dire necessity which is a muttarr
cannot consume the food of another person who
is in dire necessity muttarr like him because
we say ...
...
...
...
so if he's like him muttarr like you
know so you have a little bit of
food I have nothing we're travelling we're hungry
we're starving, there's no food around us I
cannot take yours because we're equal in attarr
and the food is yours it's not mine
but if if you have extra then I
can take it I can even fight you
to take it if you don't willingly give
it to me because I am muttarr now
and then I will have to compensate you
for it I'll have to compensate you for
it then someone compelled to kill cannot save
their life by sacrificing their brother's life you
know I have talked to you before about
our our system being to a great extent
utilitarian but it is not utilitarian like you
know Benthamite utilitarianism or you know like your
good old utilitarianism no we have guidelines, it
is religious utilitarianism it is a system that
basically values human interest human well-being, human
welfare values but it is divinely guided it's
moral, principled so religious utilitarianism is a good
name for or divinely guided or moral or
principled whatever name you can craft for it
so it is not complete utilitarianism because our
objectives are different our world view is different
so we believe that there is something beyond
matter we believe that we are spiritual beings
in physical forms, we believe that there is
something beyond matter so our objectives are different
our world view is different and we have
the divine guidelines that will protect us from
basically unchecked utilitarianism unchecked utilitarianism this is one
of the basically guidelines you cannot kill your
brother to save yourself so if someone holds
a gun to you and says kill so
and so or I will kill you you
cannot kill so and so the same applies
to * also you can't *, you can't
kill even if there is a gun held
to your head because that is removing harm
by equal harm so the fact that it
is not your harm doesn't mean much from
the divine perspective that is removing harm by
equal harm so if someone does you know
and kills their brother because they are being
threatened then what happens who is going to
be liable both are liable al-mukrih and
al-mukrih are both liable according to Malik
and Ahmed and one of the two positions
of al-Shafi'i al-mukrih and al
-mukrih are both liable for equal retribution al
-mukrih is the compeller and al-mukrih is
the compelled okay there is a very important
submaxim that we have to pay attention to
it's one of the most beautiful submaxims which
is the oppressed cannot oppress others the oppressed
cannot oppress others you could say explicitly
affirmed by the Hanafis and upheld by all
jurists I'll give you a few examples if
someone you know sometimes people fought over lands
because the landmarks sometimes people moved the landmarks
or sometimes people questioned whether this is my
border so al-ghasib, the misappropriator is not
always a criminal the misappropriator, the one who
seizes land by force or seizes property by
force may be mistaken but whether they are
mistaken or they are criminal they're still liable
but their liability does not mean that we
oppress them, that we transgress them so if
you plant crops on a land that you
forcefully seized misappropriated land and you plant crops
then the land gets returned to the rightful
owner and there are crops on the land
what happens in this case you either you
either pay them, reimburse them for the expenses
you either reimburse them for the expenses or
allow them time to harvest the crops for
rent so they'll pay your rent they will
pay their rent also retrospectively for all the
time that they have seized your land or
misappropriated your land but you could either you
will be given the choice as the rightful
owner to let them harvest their crops and
they pay your rent or to reimburse them
for their expenses and then you harvest the
crops so here what are we doing we're
basically observing the right of the the misappropriator
so he's zalim but the fact that he's
zalim does not allow us to or to
transgress him or her okay and look at
the example of equal retribution for instance al
-qisas, equal retribution or al-qisas in al
-qisas or equal retribution we have to ensure
al-amna min al-hayf al-amna min
al-hayf is basically avoidance of inequity or
you know excess excess so if someone cuts
someone's hand from here or someone's arm of
course if someone cuts someone's arm hand from
here you cannot cut their arm from here
so equality you know and equal retribution that's
why it's called equal retribution but if someone
cuts someone's arm from here do we cut
their arm from here yes unless yes unless
we fear that it will penetrate you know
it's like too close to the jaw, too
close to the hollow interior of the body
and it will cause greater harm that we
will not be able to control and the
same applies to equality in the body part,
equality in the integrity and the health of
the body part so when it comes to
al-qisas we do not like if we
cannot ensure equality and we cannot ensure non
-transgression no excess if no if we cannot
ensure that there will be no excess then
we don't do equal retribution what do we
do in place compensation compensation in place of
equal retribution because is a condition and then
so and the wounds are equal for equal
so a soul for a soul, eye for
eye etc but you know equal for equal
is what is prescribed which
would translate as and if you punish then
punish with an equivalent of that which you
were harmed but if you are patient it
is better for those who are patient Allah
also says and which will translate to the
retribution for an evil act is an equivalent
evil one but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation
the reward is with Allah you notice you
notice the fairness of the system it allows
for equal retribution it allows for al-qisas
but it points to what sort of the
higher ethical ground you know if you are
patient then it is better for the patient
ones who pardons and forgives then the reward
will be with Allah then it is allowing
for equal retribution which is fairness but it
is pointing to the higher ethical ground now
this higher ethical ground is not always higher
by the way that's why sometimes it's not
that you know forgiveness is not the higher
ethical ground because if you forgive like a
basically a repetitive offender then you are emboldening
the repetitive offender then you are causing harm
to the society if someone keeps on harming
people and keeps on getting forgiven by people
because all the people are basically trying to
reach for the higher ethical ground then certainly
that would cause greater harm, that would not
be wisdom in this case, wisdom in this
case is to ask for equal retribution and
it is the more moral and ethical conduct
in such a scenario but if someone commits
like a you know, someone gets nervous and
you know, loses their sort of, loses control
and commits like a crime and you feel
that you know, forgiving them is is warranted
and it may be better for you and
them then certainly your reward will be with
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala for this reason
the jurists stipulated that no, I guess we
finished this part and you know, so this
maxim is a very profound one because most
of the time what happens basically the vicious
cycle of oppression the vicious cycle of conflict
and oppression and transgression is caused by you
know, reciprocation of harm harm, reciprocation of harm
more harm, reciprocation of harm someone needs to
cut through this cycle so like for instance
some people say an eye for an eye
would make the whole world blind you know,
we don't believe in this we believe that
allowing criminals you know, letting criminals go unchecked
will make the world blind but again at
the same time, we do have room for
you know, for breaking through this cycle of
perpetual vicious sort of oppression and reciprocation of
oppression, harm and reciprocation of harm it's not
always you know, sometimes it's warranted sometimes it's
not whatever is more conducive to well-being
you know, for the individuals and the society,
to fairness, to justice should be done Umar
ibn Abdulaziz said بَلَغَنِي أَنَّ الرَّجُلَ لَيَظْلَمُ بِمَظْلَامَةٍ
فَلَيَزَالُ الْمَظْلُومُ يَشْتُمُ الظَّالِمُ وَيَتَنَقَصُهُ حَتَّى يَسْتَوْفِي
حَقَّهُ وَيَكُونَ لِلظَّالِمِ الْفَضْلُ عَلَيْهِ it has reached
me that when a man is wronged he
continues to curse and degrade the oppressor until
he has taken back his right and the
oppressor then ends up having a right over
him ends up having, you know the upper
hand over him so someone oppresses you you
continue to curse them, you continue to abuse
them until you have basically recouped all of
your right and then you transgress and the
oppressor becomes in this case the oppressed and
they have a right over you so this
is a very important قَعِدَ to keep in
mind exceptions from the major قَعِدَ from, you
know, exceptions from قَعِدَةَ الضَّلَلَ يُزَلْ بِمِثْلِ harm
is not to be removed by an equal
harm is the gossip, the gossip sometimes so
remember when we said if the gossip plants
crops what if the gossip, the misappropriator builds
a structure on your land or plants trees
in your land what do we do in
this case so we will force him to
remove, like, you have the right you have
the right you could tell him I'll take
it but you'll have the right to have
them uproot the trees demolish the building uproot
the trees and you know, take your land
back the difference between crops and trees is
what one is transient and one is not,
you know temporality is the difference so the
crops I can you know, leave it for
a couple of weeks and then you harvest
it and then I get my land but
the trees are different and the prophet ﷺ
said ليس لعرق ظالم حق or ليس لعرق
ظالم حق ليس لعرق ظالم or لعرق ظالم
so ليس لعرق ظالم which means the root
of an oppressor does not have any right
ليس لعرق ظالم ليس لعرق ظالم the oppressive
root does not have any right as if
the root itself is described as oppressive there
is no right for unjust roots there is
no right for unjust roots so this قعدة
should be clear ضرر لا يزال بمثله harm
is not to be removed by an equal
harm the next قعدة is basically to tell
you that you could remove harm by a
lesser harm ضرر الأشد يزال بالضرر الخف greater
harm is removed by lesser harm some consider
this maximum and the you know, the two
other ones يختار أهون الشرين وإذا تعارض مفسدتان
روعي أعظمهما ضررا بارتكاب أخفهما so يختار أهون
الشرين يختار أهون الشرين is the lesser evil
is chosen الضرر الأشد يزال بالضرر الأخف so
this is greater oh, I'm sorry, this is
greater harm is to be removed by
the lesser harm and then you
have يختار أهون الشرين الشرين
the two evils, right two evils أهون is
the lesser يختار is chosen so this will
translate into the lesser evil the lesser of
the two evils is chosen, the lesser of
the two evils is chosen, are they the
same they're not the same what's different yeah
but the other yeah no it's telling you
that you should choose it, it's not like
you have choice, it's telling you that you
should choose the lesser of the two evils
it's not giving you the choice yes yes
we're dealing with a harm that is existent
and we are removing it by a lesser
harm but you are here at the crossroads
in the second one you are at the
crossroads you have two pathways, not a third
two, two options both of them entail harm,
but one entails greater harm, then you have
to take, at this bifurcation you have to
take the route that will cause the lesser
harm, not the greater harm so we're talking
here about you know, harm that is existent
and harm that is expected maybe it is
you know the trolley problem, like the the
switch of the tracks of the train because
you have like less people on this track
than maybe it is and then so
is basically when there are sort of where
we have to choose we don't have a
third option we have to choose between two
options one of them is worse than the
other all
these maxims take into account that harm is
not uniform in degree rather it varies in
its nature and its effects Allah almighty says
and fitna is worse than killing and fitna
here is basically to force people away from
their deen to persecute people away from their
deen and there are several obligations one of
them is the obligation you know, several applications
one of them is the obligation to remove
water spouts and sabat sabat is the canopy
we've gone over this before if you have
like a water spout that's causing harm to
the people you have to remove it and
stuff because that's the lesser harm we're talking
here about removing an existing harm by a
lesser harm so if you have a water
spout that is causing harm to pedestrians or
a canopy that's causing harm to pedestrians you
know, the lesser harm is basically to order
you to remove it even if you had
built it when the road was lower or
the pathway was lower and the canopy was
not causing problems if the canopy is now
causing problems after 35 years we will ask
you to remove it because it is causing
harm to the pedestrians divorce for instance if
the harm of marriage is greater than the
harm of divorce divorce is a bad thing
I've written a paper about the ruling of
divorce sometimes sisters ask if divorce is halal
for men I believe that the default for
divorce is prohibition it's not halalness, it is
prohibition it's not the majority position but it
is I believe strongly in this position this
is the position of some Hanafis and this
is the position of Ibn Taymiyyah that divorce
is forbidden it's not halal how could that
be?
we say that the five rulings apply to
divorce haram, halal I'm sorry haram, wajib, mashtahab,
makrooh and mubah all five rulings apply to
divorce but what is the default default prohibited
haram because it leads to harm so that
if this is the expression they use so
the default with regard to divorce is prohibition
is prohibition so why is it that we
have a hadith that says the most most
disliked thing in the sight of Allah most
disliked of the halal things in the sight
of Allah talaq why do we have this
hadith?
first of all, it's controversial the hadith may
not be authentic second if we say it
is authentic we are assuming that this is
a warranted divorce we are assuming that this
is still a warranted divorce not a completely
unprovoked divorce when we say the default in
talaq is prohibition we are talking about talaq
that is you know the paper that I
shared with you on the change of fatwa
in family laws, it is in your folder
it talks about change of fatwa in family
laws this is one of the chapters the
default with regard to divorce is prohibition so
if it is unprovoked it's unwarranted then it
has to be prohibition if the prophet says
that talaq is basically the sort of the
greatest priority for the shaytan is to cause
divorce so there is a hadith in muslim
where the shaytan dispatches his troops and says
I will crown the one who causes the
greatest harm and fitna and then you know
someone comes and says I had him kill
someone I had him do this I had
him mistreat his parents etc and the shaytan
that will come and say I continued to
urge him until I separated between him and
his wife the shaytan will bring him closer
to him and will crown him and he
will say you are the one so if
the prophet is telling us that this is
the highest priority for the shaytan then it
just can't be basically halal anyway having said
that having said that talaq sometimes can be
the lesser of the two evils the lesser
of the two evils and this is one
of the applications that's why talaq is permissible
in islam versus catholicism or something like that
now the annulment of marriage also yes
so the same applies to annulment so we
can ask for annulment of marriage if you
marry someone and they have hidden a problem
and the problem that affects or the flaws
that allow for annulment of marriage are basically
controversial among the mazahib but some of them
are let us say for example for a
mother in an example you didn't tell your
spouse that you have HIV for instance well
it will cause it will cause them anxiety,
it will cause them harm they can ask
for annulment they can ask for annulment so
annulment sometimes can be the lesser of the
two evils now if a man becomes completely
broke and doesn't have no financial capacity to
sustain their family will we allow the wife
to ask for annulment yes we will allow
her to ask for annulment three out of
four mazahib will allow her to ask for
annulment that's Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali the
Hanafis will have them locked up until he
spends they will allow her but anyway
they will basically figure out a way to
to force him or to have her released
to force him to spend or to have
her released that is in this case why
are we doing this because the harm of
staying in the marriage for the wife is
greater than the harm of the annulment of
the marriage if he's unable to sustain a
family then that causes a greater harm fighting
a rebellious group this could also be you
know the same concept when you fight a
rebellious group, the rebellious group is a group
of Muslims that are rebelling against the legitimate
imam and in this case it causes harm
but it is the lesser harm likewise so
it has the spectrum of applications is huge
so from fighting a rebellious group to talaq
and annulment to something as you know small
as turning your cell phone off if you're
praying and your cell phone is ringing and
you're praying in congregation you take it out
of your pocket, you turn it off you
put it back in your pocket so this
movement in prayer is harm because it disrupts
the khushuah in the prayer and when you
do this you also will distract the people
next to you but is it the lesser
harm or the greater harm?
It's the lesser harm just to keep the
phone ringing closely related to this maxim is
a maxim that we will discuss later next
session inshallah we will discuss the maxim of
private harm we will discuss the maxim it's
not about me you know so private harm
is endured to avert public harm private harm
is endured to avert public harm is another
maxim that is related to this one okay
so let's move on to the big one
this is a very important maxim and it
has many applications the lesser of two evils
is chosen when two harms conflict the greater
harm is mitigated by committing the lesser when
two harms conflict the greater harm is mitigated
by committing the lesser harm if you're this
is must
be chosen ahwan, lesser asharrain two evils okay
this is hikmah this is basically the basis
of hikmah or wisdom so imam taymiah rahimahullah
said al aqil the wise man or the
wise person is not the person who sorts
out evil from good sorting out evil from
good is not wisdom because most people are
able to do this wisdom is to sort
out the greater of two evils and the
greater of two goods sort out the greater
of two evils the greater of the two
goods and to be able to mitigate the
greater evil by tolerating the lesser one and
to procure the greater benefit by forsaking the
lesser one so this is an important concept
so says in his 33rd qaida if
interests conflict if interests conflict the higher one
is prioritized so an obligatory act is preferred
over a recommended one and a more significant
benefit is prioritized over a lesser one if
harms conflict and one must be committed the
lesser of the two is chosen remember when
we had during the time of covid we
had a fatwa about scarcity of resources scarcity
of resources like you have one vent we
were making basically a lot of assumptions about
how there would be great scarcity of resources
and thousands of people are dying millions are
dying and all of that stuff you know
at the beginning of the scare it was
so we were talking about like if you
have one vent and you have three patients
and you have to choose what are you
going to do like so if you have
a patient with you know the three patients
three patients you will have to figure out
have to figure out metrics by which you
determine which patient will be put on the
vent and certainly it's not going to be
you know these are this will be a
very difficult situation but you will have to
be making very very tough choices and you
will have to be talking about life expectancy
so if you have a 30 year old
and a 75 year old which one will
you put on the vent that will look
like discrimination against old people yeah you know
so I'm almost 60 so like so you
have a 60 year old and a 25
year old so in this case and you
have one vent and don't tell me you
know figure it out no there is only
one vent both need this vent both will
die without this vent so do you put
the one who's 60 or the one who's
25 on the vent and if you say
life expectancy is let us say life expectancy
is 80 years or whatever it is and
so this person has 20 years left nobody
knows you can say are you god no
I'm not god I'm just talking about life
expectancy these two people I don't know how
but life expectancy is about 80 years so
this person may have 55 years ahead of
them this person may have 20 years ahead
of them if I put the 25 year
old on the vent I am basically saving
55 years of life it has to be
down to this has to be down to
this but then someone may say you know
this 60 year old may have little kids
who need them and this 25 year old
may have nobody who needs them would you
factor this in you factor this in as
well and it gets to be an extremely
difficult predicament certainly it would have been a
very difficult predicament for healthcare providers healthcare workers
and so on if we got to that
point but if you get to that point
you will be making very very tough choices
and they look very evil but it's the
lesser of two evils so it may look
very evil that you are saying I am
not putting this person on the vent because
they are older I'm not putting this person
on the vent because they have no dependence
I am not it sounds very evil like
I'm you know I'm letting this guy die
because he is this or that but in
this case I am forced to choose one
of two evils they are both evil if
I let go of this or let go
of that they are both evil so Ibn
Hajjab it
it will sometimes it can get to be
extremely difficult and many times there will be
things that you will not consider because they
will they will be very subjective and you
will not consider you will have to find
things that are objective you know like age
dependence something that is very objective that can
be justified instead of saying that this person
is worth more than that person because this
person you know one of the things that
we have talked about also is healthcare workers
do you prioritize healthcare workers in a situation
of this nature you will prioritize healthcare workers
because every healthcare worker you lose you are
losing many people with them because if you
have scarcity of resources and these are the
people who are saving lives then you ought
to prioritize them because by prioritizing them you
are prioritizing the people who are saving lives
I am just telling you this is an
example of having to choose between different evils
okay Ibn Rajab said you could read this
it is the same concept Ibn Najjar said
another legal proof is the jurist statement repelling
harms takes precedence over bringing benefits and the
most severe harm is repelled by the least
severe this maxim acknowledges that life is a
realm of trials benefits conflict harms conflict and
it may not be always conflict completely it
may not be always possible to separate the
harm from the benefit and get the pure
benefit and avoid harm so Imam Taqiyyidin Ibn
Taymiyyah said الواجب تحصيل المصالح وتكميلها وتعطيل المفاسد
وتقليلها فإذا تعرضت كان تحصيل أعظم المفصلحتين بتفويت
أدناهما ودفع أعظم المفسدتين مع احتمال أدناهما هو
المشروع the obligation is to secure benefits and
perfect them while averting harms and minimizing them
if they conflict the greater benefit is attained
by sacrificing the lesser and the greater harm
is averted by tolerating the lesser this is
the prescribed approach this is the prescribed approach
so this is often referred to remember you
hear sometimes about فقه الموازنات and فقه الأولويات
that's what this is about فقه الموازنات is
the fiqh of balances فقه الأولويات is the
fiqh of priorities this is where it's coming
from so don't be you know frazzled when
you hear about فقه الموازنات and فقه الأولويات
I know many people get frazzled you know
because they think the fuqaha are just corrupting
the deen and they're just like being too
what interventionists no it is it is all
based on these solid maxims, these solid Islamic
principles so فقه الموازنات balances and الأولويات priorities
is based on this maxim so the
legal evidence for this maxim is there are
so many countless ones but you know Allah
says يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنَ الشَّهْرِ الْحَرَامِ قِتَالٍ فِيهِ قُلْ
قِتَالٌ فِيهِ كَبِيرٌ وَصَضُّنَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَكُفْرٌ
بِهِ وَالْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ وَيَخْرَاجُ أَهْلِهِ مِنْهُ أَكْبَرُ وَعَنْدُ
اللَّهِ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَكْبَرُ مِنَ الْقَتْلُ وَلَا يَسْأَلُونَ يُقَتِلُونَكُمْ
إِلَى آخِرِ الْآيَاتِ so they ask you about
the let's read the translation they ask you
about the fighting in the sacred month say
fighting therein is grave but averting people from
the way of Allah and disbelief in Him
and preventing access to المسجد الحرام and expelling
its people from it are greater in the
sight of Allah and fitna is worse than
killing, fitna is to forcibly you know divert
people or avert people sway people away from
their deen, persecute them away from their deen,
till they leave their deen and the Prophet
ﷺ also said that اِمَانْ بَضَعَنْ وَسَبْعُونَ شُعْبَ
فَاعْلَهَا لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ أَدْنَاهَا لَا إِمَاتُ
الْأَذَى عَنَ الطَّرِيقِ امان is 60 some or
70 some branches, the highest is لا إله
إلا الله and the lowest is to remove
harm from the pathway which tells you what?
that things are not equal, you know good
things are not all equal bad things are
not all equal, there are priorities the Prophet
ﷺ said to Aisha, oh Aisha had your
people not been so recently in a state
of Jahiliyyah or ignorance, I would have demolished
the Kaaba, made it level with the ground
given it two doors one on the east
and one on the west and expanded it
by six cubits from the Hijr Quraysh had
shortened it when they built it so why
did he refrain from doing the right thing?
because it will cause discord among the Quraysh
and fitna because they're, you know they used
to view the Kaaba a lot and to
demolish it would cause discord and would cause
like fitna among Quraysh so when Abdullah ibn
Zubayr demolished the Kaaba and did that thing
you know, so the Kaaba looked a little
bit more rectangular during the time of Abdullah
ibn Zubayr you know nowadays it's like square,
it was more rectangular during the time of
Abdullah ibn Zubayr why?
because he put the Hijr inside the Kaaba
because the Hijr belongs inside the Kaaba Quraysh
had sort of the shortage of funds when
they were building the Kaaba, so they put
the Hijr outside of the Kaaba now the
Hijr is still outside the Kaaba should we
put it back in and do what the
Prophet wanted to do?
it depends you know, so if you do
this if you do this they will say
that you know, look at the Saudis there
that will be that will be the fire
and straw now so if people see the
Kaaba being demolished that will be the final
straw so so in this case in this
case even now, you know, because how are
you going to basically inform all those people,
like 2 billion Muslims about the truth you
know, that actually the Prophet meant to do
that so in this case you shouldn't, because
it will cause a lot more fitna than
it's worth doing so even now, you know
after 1400 years you can't do it you
can't do what the Prophet wanted to do
because of the fitna why did Abdullah ibn
Zubair do it?
because people, you know this was a few
decades after Quraish converted to Islam and he
felt that, you know people are educated enough
and people are Muslim enough that I can
do it now and he was able to
do it and it didn't cause much upheaval
when he did it but anyway they didn't
change it back yet anyway so
similarly in the case of the Bedouin man
who was urinating in the Masjid the Prophet
said don't interrupt him because if you let
him finish you know, so like someone is
urinating in the Masjid well that looks to
the Sahaba like sort of heretical and blasphemous
but the Prophet the Prophet said let him
finish let him finish because imagine if you
know during the act of urination if they
come and attack him what kind of mess
that would cause so the principle of
prioritization so Imam Taqaydeen ibn Taymiyyah mentioned some
cases here where he said when it comes
to prioritization he said the first type relates
to prioritizing obligatory over recommended to prioritize obligatory
over recommended to basically pay off your debt
or give charity pay off your debt or
give charity what do you prioritize pay off
your debt one is obligatory and one is
recommended okay, prioritizing an individual obligation over a
communal obligation to basically provide for your family
or to finance non-obligatory jihad jihad that
is not obligatory on you you have money
only enough to either provide for your family
or to finance non-obligatory jihad jihad that
is not obligatory on you specifically you specifically
like you are not being demanded to go
out because if you are demanded to go
out you will have to finance your whatever
your campaign so you provide for your family
and you don't finance that non-obligatory jihad
you prioritize your family different examples like
do you prioritize dhikr or Qur'an or
salah recitation of the Qur'an, dhikr or
salah then recitation of the Qur'an because
that's the best dhikr then dhikr given what
given that all of them will engage your
heart similarly but if you feel like you
know dhikr now will engage my heart more
then you give precedence to dhikr now so
it will not be always but it will
be now recitation of the Qur'an is
better than dhikr because that's the best dhikr
is the word of speech of God to
remember God by reciting his word that's the
best form of dhikr and salah is the
ultimate you know form of union our union
with Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala sunni union
not the bida'i union not the blasphemous
union but our sunni union being together with
Allah this togetherness with Allah subhanahu wa ta
'ala salah is your basically way to that
union or togetherness with Allah and which part
of salah is you would be closest to
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala sujood so there
is no togetherness or union with Allah subhanahu
wa ta'ala more than what you will
have in your sujood okay then other other
applications so in terms of in terms of
prohibitions we like can a woman during their
time women traveling alone is like a different
like a long story but during their time
they allowed women to travel alone if she
was emigrating from the land of disbelief to
the land of belief from dar al harb
to dar al islam from you know the
land of kufr to the land of islam
because in this case it would be the
lesser of the two evils the greater evil
is to stay with the in the land
of disbelief this maxim also counts as other
applications the legislation of jihad itself is to
repel harm from the disbelievers because you know
the * of disbelievers over muslims will cause
greater harm than the harm of jihad itself
we allow in transactions some degree of gharar
because if you don't allow any degree of
gharar that will cause what so much harm
if you don't allow any degree of uncertainty
or speculation in transactions that will freeze the
market there has to be some gharar here
and there because otherwise if you want to
eliminate gharar risk taking uncertainty speculation if you
want to eliminate gharar from transactions you will
kill the market and so gharar was allowed
for this some degree of gharar of course
excessive gharar is not allowed refraining from condemning
wrongdoing if it causes greater harm that's one
example if amr ab al ma'ruf an
nahi an al munkar will cause greater munkar
then you refrain from ordaining good and forbidding
bad you ordain good and forbidding bad if
it's conducive to good not munkar endurance of
the oppression and injustice of rulers as rebellion
against them often leads to greater harm and
corruption than their tyranny and that is basically
one of the applications according to ahl al
sunnah you endure the oppression of the rulers
because rebelling will cause greater harm now so
this is a long story and if you
want to get my detailed position we went
over this when we discussed al-amda so
it will be under rebellion qital al bugha
you know fighting against the rebels the rules
fighting against the rebels but anyway i just
want to tell you that this is basically
about an armed group an armed group trying
to seize power from an established regime or
established sultan an armed group trying to seize
power from an established sultan you tolerate the
oppression because how did they come to the
conclusion that rebellion will always lead to greater
harm how did they come to that conclusion,
did the prophet say that or is it
istiqra inductive examination of the history so they
looked at the history they looked at the
different they looked at al-hussain, they looked
at ibn al-ash'ath, they looked at
ibn al-zubair they looked at sahab al
-nafs al-zakiya they looked at izaid they
looked at every single rebellion except for the
abbasis the abbasis were able eventually to seize
power from the umayyads, that was a form
of rebellion you know, why were they not
called rebels because they won that's the only
difference uh so but based on this qa
'ida, based on this qa'ida would we
say that if if rebellion is the lesson
to evils and the greater evil is basically
tolerance of or endurance of the oppression of
the ruler based on this qa'ida would
rebellion be favored yes, based on the qa
'ida but now we have many nusus texts
of revelation that we need to address and
this is not going to be the time
for this but if you want more details,
go to the you know, the chapter in
umdah where we discuss the rebellion and fighting
against the rebels but of course this talks
about this is not talking about ahl al
-hall wal-aqd removing the sultan or the
imam we're not talking here we're talking about
armed rebellion by a group ahl al-hall
wal-aqd the people in authority can remove
the imam this is a different discussion this
is not the discussion of rebellion people in
authority, ahl al-hall wal-aqd can remove
the imam this is not called the rebellion
and this is not the subject of this
discussion also not the subject of this discussion
the condemnation of the evil by the rulers
this is different, this is not an act
of rebellion rebellion is the armed rebellion by
a group against the established authority ah then
also we have among the applications is accepting
positions of authority where some degree of injustice
exists, where some degree of injustice exists so
al-imam he fought against the tatars by
himself and you know he sort of displayed
legendary heroism in fighting against the tatars in
basically leading the campaign recruiting the sultan himself,
went to him in Egypt to bring him
to Asham to fight and so on and
so forth, so he was very you know
you know at the forefront of the resistance
of the tatars but when the tatars became
in control in certain areas he validated validated
the reasoning that some of the Muslim scholars
provided for working as judges and imams under
the authority of the tatars, he said that
these people wanted so someone who's obsessed with
fighting with the tatars he could still see
that you may work with them and you
know the rationale that they provided for working
as judges and imams under the tatars made
sense to him because now that they are
in control if you don't basically accept those
positions more harm would ensue, you know so
he said that these people wanted to avert
harm from the masses, from the public as
much as they could as much as they
could to provide this buffer between the masses
and the ruler because the ruler cannot basically
administer or cannot control the entire population by
themselves so the ruler will need you know
a layer of executives and judges and imams
and so on and so forth so would
you work for that oppressive ruler to try
as much as you can to mitigate some
of the harm and protect the masses from
some of the harm like work as a
filter between the ruler and the public he
said that this is a valid sort of
rationale also according
to a weaker opinion you could sort of
cut open the abdomen of a deceased woman
if you are if you can extract the
fetus alive if it is hoped that the
fetus is still viable and alive you could
cut open the abdomen this is the weaker
position in the madhhab and we've discussed this
before and we've discussed you know the rationale
behind the stronger position in the madhhab so
now during their time you have a woman
who died during childbirth a woman who died
during childbirth and the fetus is moving inside
you detect some movement of the fetus inside
the question is should we cut the abdomen
and extract the fetus deliver the fetus this
would be a cesarean section but it was
not like the modern cesarean section it would
be without anesthesia or anything you just cut
the abdomen open she's already dead so we
have two positions in the madhhab and there
is disagreement within the madhhab some said some
said that the certain sacredness of
the deceased should be prioritized over the speculative
life of the baby or the sort of
uncertain life of the baby or the fetus
and some people said that the sacredness of
the living should be prioritized over the sacredness
of the dead dead do you see the
rationale behind the two positions there is like
I said last time this shows you that
our fuqaha did not treat women as basically
sort of a productive tool or like a
reproductive machine a reproductive machine they would sacrifice
the fetus because the life of the fetus
is uncertain for the sacredness of that dead
woman because they felt that and certainly the
prophet is the one who said this he
forbade mutilation of dead bodies he said that
breaking the bone of the dead is like
breaking the bone of the living so dead
people have you know or dead bodies are
sacred and they have their sacredness yeah so
nowadays it would be so nowadays it would
be a little bit different and so in
the Hanbali Madhhab they favored which position in
the sort of in the classical Hanbali Madhhab
they favored the sacredness of the dead woman
so they said that the life of the
fetus is uncertain what is certain is the
sacredness of the dead body so that's what
I'm saying so now it may be different
and I even said this in the in
like the thing that I sent you I
mentioned that I mentioned that the less favorable
position may become more favorable because of the
change in circumstances so nowadays nowadays I think
it would be a no brainer that you
will extract the fetus because if you're able
to detect you know heartbeats and so on
and and get the fetus out then I
think that the sacredness of life should be
prioritized in our times in their times it
was like they may have tried it a
few times by the way because they they
said that most likely the fetus will not
live most likely the fetus will not live
this was going to be a very messy
procedure by the way like it's a very
messy procedure and most likely the fetus did
not live in our times most likely if
you're able to detect heartbeats and if you
can do the emergency c-section and get
the fetus out most likely the fetus will
live so that is where the fatwa changes
with the change of times and circumstances so
whoever misappropriates a thread to bind the wound
of a respected being must return it if
doing so does not cause harm otherwise they
are liable for its value so you misappropriate
a thread and you stitch a wound with
this thread we will tell you undo it
if it does not cause greater harm but
if it causes greater harm then we will
not demand the return of the thread we
will ask for the value punishment when it's
possible to confine to the perpetrator alone is
it's obligatory to confine harm or punishment to
the perpetrator alone if you can't confine it
and a greater harm will ensue then let
me give you an example uh to use
weapons of mass destruction weapons of mass destruction
for them were what catapult was the weapon
of mass the weapon of mass destruction because
it does indiscriminate killing it does indiscriminate killing
to use a weapon like this would not
be permissible unless avoidance would result in greater
harm avoidance would result in greater harm in
this case you could use it uh so
that is why many scholars said you could
use al-manjaniq in al-jihad al-wajib
only so that is defensive jihad you could
use catapult in defensive jihad anyway also uh
there was like one example so performing the
friday or the eight prayers behind an immoral
person or a fasiq in the madhhab the
imamah of the fasiq the imamah of the
wicked you know disobedient immoral person is not
valid in the madhhab in the hanbali madhhab
it's not valid but if there is a
wicked disobedient immoral person leading the friday or
the eid prayer and there is no one
else that you can pray behind you go
and pray the eid prayer because here the
greater harm is your basically uh what avoidance
of the eid prayer uh huh missing the
missing the jummah missing the eid prayer breaking
the community apart this would be the greater
harm so if it is only one person
and that person happened to be immoral, disobedient,
wicked then you still pray behind them you
know how people used to uh you know
they may still do to stand up for
people arriving coming in into the room or
into the majlis to stand up was that
the custom of the prophet and the companions
no in fact anas ibn malik said they
didn't love anyone more than they loved the
prophet and they would not stand up for
him because they knew that he disliked it
he hated when people stood up for him
so when someone comes into the majlis uh
you don't stand up for them, that's the
sunnah unless they're coming from unless you haven't
seen them for a long time they're coming
from like uh far distance they're coming back
into town after travel someone who was absent
someone who was traveling and they came back
then they may you know stand up for
them uh to receive them now said that
if the custom if the sort of the
custom is to stand up for people and
if you don't stand up for them they
will think that you you're basically denying their
right or that you're belittling them or demeaning
them by not standing then in this case
to avert the greater harm you stand up
for them until until uh people become more
educated become more aware of the sunnah so
how do we how do we do this
like if because if we abandon the sunnah
every time for people's taste then we will
never be able to revive the sunnah you
do it gradually you do it gradually you
do it by by spreading knowledge by reiterating
that this is not something that you should
be doing all the time sometimes you may
do it but you shouldn't be doing it
all the time it should not be the
routine custom for people to stand up when
someone is coming in likewise the kissing of
hands did they kiss the hands of each
other did they kiss the hands of the
ulema and salihin they did did they do
this every time they met they didn't so
we say what it's okay every once in
a while particularly if you do this to
humble yourself and to show humility but it
should not be a routine thing because it
was not a routine thing for the first
community they did not kiss the hands of
you know the salihin and the ulema as
a routine thing if it is done every
once in a while particularly as a practice
of humility and to humble oneself and to
honor a teacher or something of that nature
that is okay but it should not be
a routine the same applies to standing up
for people you should not be standing up
for people if they are aware of the
sunnah if they are aware of the sunnah
if we have spread knowledge enough that people
are aware of the sunnah then we should
practice the sunnah because there is nothing better
than the sunnah if they are not and
you fear that it will cause more harm
they will be offended then you stand up
for them until they become more educated so
finally I said at the end know that
prioritizing matters requires knowledge and fairness obligatory acts
take precedence over recommended ones and individually binding
duties come before collective ones the superior is
prioritized over the less significant and matters specific
to a particular time or place are given
precedence in their context public benefit is prioritized
over private benefit immediate obligations take precedence over
these that can be delayed and necessities are
prioritized over needs which in turn come before
enhancements and so on so if you so
obligation over sunnah ok so in
the sense of recommendation and then individual obligation
over collective or communal if it is your
individual obligation then you prioritize it over communal
obligations like we said you provide for your
family before you finance jihad also we prioritize
public interest over private interest
also you prioritize immediate obligations
over what is means non-immediate you know
that which can be delayed what else
do you prioritize yeah necessities
over needs and needs over enhancements this
is you prioritize over over immediate
over non-immediate public over private individual obligation
over collective obligation obligation over sunnah and you
wanted to do this all the time if
you want to figure out if you want
to prioritize even in managing your time you
want to prioritize then there are two factors
you will have to give a number to
every task when you want to prioritize tasks
importance importance and urgency those are the two
factors that you have to think of because
you have countless tasks to finish which ones
should you prioritize you will have to give
a number multiply for importance a number for
urgency multiply importance by urgency and that's how
we figure out how to prioritize tasks and
usually urgency the immediate over non-immediate would
be prioritized so if you have an important
task but you feel that you could do
it tomorrow and you have a less important
task but if it is not done today
it's over you know then you prioritize the
less important over the more important because of
that urgency but you're always looking at urgency
and importance urgency and importance say what I
say and ask Allah for forgiveness may Allah
bless you and grant you peace