Hatem al-Haj – The Coherence of Sharia – Legal Maxims
AI: Summary ©
The Hanbali School will provide plenty of examples and applications for learning a subject, and students will follow a particular method to avoid the madhab position. The method is flexible and flexible, and the advice of professional advisors is to follow a particular method until they understand it. The speakers discuss various legal maxims and importance of understanding principles for writing a book, and emphasize the importance of teaching legal maxims and understanding the five universal categorical universals for the definition of al Hadid. They also discuss the benefits of transferring advanced sciences to English and creating a deeper culture of the Sharia, and emphasize the importance of understanding the five universal categorical universals for the definition of al Hadid. The speakers emphasize the importance of learning through analogy and the difference between syllogic reasoning and analogical reasoning.AI: Transcript ©
No.
Not most of the time.
Half and half.
I guess so.
Because they pushed
it. The sisters in the back will have
to be able to see the the board.
We we need to push this partition
we need to push this partition because the
sisters in the back must see the board.
Are the sisters on the back able to
see the board?
This has this has to be pushed back.
This sister needs to see the board.
That sister needs to see the board.
Yes. It's it's We're not gonna sacrifice this
for
Sister, are you able to see the whiteboard?
Half of it?
To proceed.
So welcome back, I guess, and welcome aboard
for those who are here for the first
time.
We will resume our classes, and,
like we have done in the past,
we would go for
1 hour on Feb,
and then we will take a break
for, like, 15 minutes,
and we will do a lot of al
mafrad
for 1 hour, and then we will do
questions and answers afterwards, inshallah.
As you may be aware, we will go
over Alqa'ad Al Fakayyah, legal maxims,
which is
another way of teaching Thaq,
particularly that we would use plenty of applications,
Taqiyakat
and Sela.
When I was studying this subject,
I
had always wanted
books that provided more examples,
because the basically,
subjects like
that are a little bit more abstract,
would be better understood if you provide plenty
of examples.
No matter how much you try to explain
it theoretically, if you don't have applications, if
you don't have plentiful applications,
the subject would continue to be,
vague
and ambiguous to some extent.
So what we will try to do, here,
inshallah, is we will try to provide plenty
of examples
and applications.
I the title for this,
I wanted to say, you know, the beauty
of sharia, but maybe the coherence of Sharia
is, more
suitable,
for the subject because, you know, Al Qad
Al Fapeyya is about
it's about the coherence of Sharia.
And it is about the governing principles that
the fuqaha
keep in mind
when they are
making deductions of rulings
from
the evidences
or when they are
practicing fatwa.
So we would call it the coherence of
sharia,
and the subtitle is legal maxims and their
Applications in the Hanbari
School,
and others,
I should say,
because it will it will have
it will be, to some extent, comparative,
but the applications will be mainly from the
Hanbali School. And I was going to talk
about this a little bit later, but maybe
I should just start by addressing this issue.
Why in the Hanbali School?
Because it is important for the student of
knowledge
to be trained in in 1 school.
You know, the the idea of madhabism,
there is, like, a moderate position on madhabism,
that is not basically,
you know, that many people subscribe
to that does not
go to 1 of the 2 extremes. So
there is there is always a way
for
a a synthesis
between the thesis and the antithesis.
Between, you know, strict madhabism
and antimathabism,
there is always a synthesis.
But the student of knowledge should be trained
in,
in 1 mathab.
There is still,
there is still the possibility of Taghayur and
Tanaquol
based on their level of education.
Taghayur would be selection. Tanaquol would be transfer
when we seek a fatwa from
a scholar from from, a different madhab. There
is also the possibility of
choosing a fatwa from outside of the form
of zaheb
with certain conditions,
with certain conditions.
So
the the the transfer between the mazahib,
is a little bit more, flexible,
but when it comes to selecting a fatwa
or following a fatwa from outside of the
form of Dahab,
certain conditions
need to be applied.
So for the majority of people, for for
the masses, for the public,
I believe in the position, and this is
a controversial issue.
Do you have to follow a method, or
you don't have to follow a method? I
believe that the public,
people don't have to follow a method.
In fact, they should not be following a
method because it would be an
uneducated decision,
based
in zealotry, not nothing else. Like, if you're
not a student of knowledge who can
make an informed decision,
why are you following this madhab versus that
madhab? For the public, for, you know, most
of the people who have not studied the
madhab and have not studied the usool of
the madhab
and cannot make an informed decision,
they don't need to subscribe to a madhhab,
and many scholars say that they shouldn't.
That a person,
does not have a Madhab.
Madhabhu, Madhabhu Mufti.
The Madhab of the army is the Madhab
of their Mufti.
But for students of knowledge, particularly
those who are on track to become scholars,
particularly
jurists or fakaha.
Certainly, the advice of the very vast very,
very vast majority
of the scholars through the ages was to
follow a particular madhab until you get it
down, and then you can study other madhab.
Many scholars have transferred from 1 madhah to
another.
You know, Taha'i, for instance, is 1 of
them that we know that that's, you know,
a popular figure.
Many of them straddled to Madahib like ibn
Dakey Pla'id who was Mariki
and Shafi'i at the same time.
Abdul Qadr Al Jalani was Hambari
predominantly, but Shafi'i also used to, make fatwa,
you know, based on the the the tomb
of Ahed.
So
so that there is that possibility, and and
that many scholars have had encompassing knowledge of
the form of Ahab,
and that they have, their own selections
or their own,
basically choices.
People like Ebna Abdelbarib Nurustib Netaimiyyah,
they have encompassing knowledge of the form of
Zahid.
However, when we, you know, just
for a start, people should if they want
to be on this track
of scholarship,
they should study according,
to 1 mad hub. Now it is very
possible that some of the audience here and
some of the audience online
basically,
if they if they
intend
to, basically
attend.
Inshallah, they would benefit because of qaad alfakayyah
mostly,
are mostly
matters of agreement between the form of the
the legal
are mostly agreed
upon in the form of Zahib.
So the tahada itself will be agreed upon.
The applications that I will mention
from the forur of the Hambari Mathab or
the detailed rulings of the Hambari Mathab
are not agreed upon.
So
how can you be an active learner if
you if you
belong to a different Mahab?
Take the PID,
go home. That's why I make the document
available in a word format,
in the folder that I shared with you.
The document is available in WORD format.
I told you
this is not for sharing, it's for you,
but I made it available in WORD format
so that you could be an active participant,
an active learner. You take the Qaida
and you look for applications,
in your own meth hub. You you try
to
find applications for this AIDA in your own
meth hub. How beneficial would that be? Extremely
beneficial.
This exercise
is extremely beneficial
because when you are an active learner, you
get to learn a lot more than being
a passive learner,
just a recipient,
just like a list like a listener.
So inshallah,
you you should be able if if you're
not Hanbali. And if you are Hanbali and
you want to be an active learner as
well,
you could expand on the applications that we
provide here. You could expand on the applications
that we provide here. Because each 1 of
these Ligand Maxims they're called Ligand Maxims because
they have multitudes
of
applications.
So this is how he can be an
active learner.
So in the Muqaddimah, or introduction,
and I told you that this, Insha'Allah, would
be this
book,
would be published, inshallah.
So in the introduction,
I started
by
a conversation that happened between an Imam Ahmad
and his son Abdullah.
So his son Abdullah,
Abdullah was not
as kathapi as Rehman Mohammed, you know, but
he was certainly a great Muhadd.
But 'Abdallah asked Imam Ahmed about,
horses,
and Imam Ahmed,
said to him based on the hadith of
Asma,
where she said that they slaughter the horse
during the time of the prophet
and ate
it,
their halal to eat.
So,
'Abdulla did not want to ask about the
permissibility of eating
horse meat.
'Abdulla wanted to ask
if
their urine is najis or
not. If their urine is najis or not.
So what did Imam Ahmad say to him?
He said
to him,
I said to you before,
all urine is impure
except for the urine
of,
that whose meat is permissible to eat.
That
which, the or that whose meat is permissible,
to eat.
So what is Aleema Mahomet
trying
to to basically
underscore here?
You have to understand the Qawat.
You have to understand the kulliyat.
These are the universals,
through which you could deduce many particulars
and many detailed rulings.
And if you don't pay attention to a
carbide,
you will not be able
to grasp the,
basically discipline of FEP. You're not gonna be
able to advance
in, in Fekh without grasping the the,
power.
Certainly, the the he was teaching his son,
and his son was a great scholar. You
know, a great mohaddith, a great scholar. He's
the 1 who finished in musnad and put
it together and and all of that.
And I'm I'm I'm not saying I'm just
saying that he was not known to be
among the foremost fokaha
of his of his time.
Now
then I, you know, I addressed the issue
of el Madaba Al Hambari, and el Madaba
Al Hambari is known for following the
It's a very textualist
madhab.
It's a very scripturalist
madhab.
Imam Ahmed responded
to 60, 000 questions by Hadafana.
You know, so whenever he whenever they asked
him about anything, he would be able to
answer by saying, Habdasana,
and so and so informatives
from,
you know, the from another from another from
another, from the Prophet
or from 1 of the companions.
So, his answers to,
almost,
you know, to most of the questions that
were posed to him,
were by Habdefena.
So it is a very scripturalist
mad hub, a very textualist mad hub.
And
does that mean that
basically
the the idea of taqa'id,
the the idea of having
a coherent legal methodology
should be ignored or was ever ignored in
the madhhab, or the imams of the madhhab
were not
for
a consistent legal methodology?
Absolutely not.
They were completely for a consistent legal methodology.
And I say here,
to be fair to the other Mezahib,
just as
in the Hanafi Mezahib
that leans towards
legal methodology,
more than
textualism.
That does not mean that in the Hanafi
madhab
traditions, you know, prophetic traditions,
Assad reports from the Prophet
and Sahaba
were ignored.
Neither
was this ignored in the Hanbari in the
Hanafi madhab,
nor was legal methodology ignored
in
in
the Hanbari
method. So in the Hanbari method,
al Zahra are not ignored.
In the Hanbari method, Ligand mythology
is not ignored,
even if these methaheb were
better known for
their Ligand methodology
or their scripturalism.
The the you can't separate between the 2.
You need legal methodology,
and you need
scriptural knowledge
or
the reports
from the prophet
and the the companions.
Now,
so I talk here about, you know, some
people who had
authored
on vegan maxims in the Hanbali method,
such as,
you know, you could certainly
find
you could find literature
on Al Qad Al Fakayyah
by great imams in the madhhab like
and among contemporary scholars Saadi and Ibn Uthaymeen.
May Allah
bestow mercy on
those who passed away.
There are also,
and everybody I mentioned had passed away, so
may Allah bestow mercy on all of them.
But there is also a number of scholars
who,
contemporary scholars who are still alive,
who contributed also to,
Al Qad and Feikeya.
Despite that,
I have not found a book on Umpad
and Vapaya.
So like I wouldn't be basically
want to,
write a book unless if if I if
I had found the book, I would have
certainly not written a book because it would
have been much easier,
to just translate an existing book. But I
have not found a book
on Alqad Al Fakayyah that is organized in
the customary in 1 of the customary manners,
I should say. Because there are different manners
of
organizing
basically,
books on Alqa Adir Fakayr.
So the the most common 1, the 1
that is followed by,
Suyuti Arbun Ajayim Allah Subhanu wa'l Nuva'l Nuva'l
Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l
Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l Nuva'l
Nu
These are the major legal maxims.
These are the most comprehensive Ligand Maxims.
Some some basically
mentioned 4
and 5,
most of the people now would consider them
to be 5, and I would write
the 5 here now just
for
for
to better conceptualization
of what we will be talking about.
So the first taqahidah is Il Amur
Dimaka'asiddiyah.
And some people prefer
So
it means matters, all matters
are judged according to their intents
are judged according to their,
intents.
The the same translation would go here.
The second 1 would be
aliapin la azud bishak.
So Aliyahqin is certainty and Shak is doubt,
is not basically overruled by doubt, is not
negated,
overruled,
displaced
by doubt.
So
The third 1
would be ladarwaladerar.
Phrasing for this Kaiba
is Adarar Yuzal,
but this is the exact wording of the
prophet
for so for the blessing
of his wording, we would just use la
dararwaladharar.
There should be no harm or reciprocation of
harm.
And certainly
Darar is harm, Darar is reciprocation
of harm, but when we come to the
Ka'ida, we will talk about all the different
interpretations
of, of the Hadith and what Dara means
in this case.
And would be number 4.
This is number 4 here.
And meshakka and meshakka is what? Hardship,
hardship, difficulty,
hardship.
Tajdip
brings about
or begets
or calls for
taisir is what? Ease,
or to make easy.
And then
Actually, taisir would be more
easing, you
know,
because yostris ease, and taisir is when you
make things easy. So there it is basically
upon the fakih
when he recognizes
making things easier for the mukallaf,
for the accountable,
person recipient of the fatwa.
And then the last 1 would be alaadamuhaqqama.
And alaadah is what? Customs, habits, customs, this
is ala'adah.
And we will talk about ala'adah versus al
arfu when we come to this. And then
muhakama,
basically,
the
so muhakama means what?
When you're given the power to to rule,
you are Muhamakkam.
This is the, basically, passive voice for Muhamakkim.
So Hakma is ruling,
and the mohak the the Hakim
is the ruler.
The mohakim is the 1 who's given the
power to rule.
So here, they translate this as customs are
given consideration.
Customs are giving consideration.
But it it may be even more powerful
than Arabic when you say muhakkama,
more powerful than just giving consideration. Customs are
giving consideration
because mohakkah means,
is given the power
to rule
or to overrule.
And these so these are the 5. Each
1 of these 5
legal maxims has
furua.
It has, like,
sub maxims
under each 1 of them. So these would
be called
that that are not as comprehensive.
Cobra means major,
you know, but
when we
the other kawaid,
other than the 5,
are kawaid
that
are branches of the 5 or independent
kawad.
The branches and the independent kawad are called
the rayed cobra. Some people would call them
a but
they are not really
sohora, so people hesitate to call them a
because each 1 of those
has tons of applications,
so you don't want to to basically be
unjust to them and call them.
So many people would call them higher cobra.
You know, they're just not a cobra.
But there is still cobra. There is still
very
all of these are universal,
you know. You this is sort of universal
principles.
But,
anyway they they have chosen
the 5 these 5 principles in particular
because they have
countless applications in FELC.
Just try to memorize
the 5 principles. They do have
countless applications in fiqh, and under each 1
of them, there are so many,
kawaid
that are branches
of these 5 legal,
maxims.
These legal maxims are agreed upon by all
the mazahib.
Like I said, most of the legal maxims,
and we when we come to discussing
some of the legal maxims that are controversial
between the mazahib, we will point to this
out, but the vast majority
of legal maxims
are agreed upon
in the form of zaheb
even if they disagree on the application.
Even if they disagree on the application.
And I'll give you an example. It's a
very common example, very popular example, how they
can disagree
on the application.
For instance,
which means that
certainty should not is not displaced or overruled
by doubt. Certainty is not displaced or overruled
by doubt.
If
you wake up in the morning
and you make wudu, you pray, you know,
Fajr on time,
and then go to work.
And
by
Zohr time,
you wonder if you use the bathroom,
and if if you're as old as me,
that could happen,
you know.
You wonder if you had used the bathroom
between
then and now,
And and then you just you you
just can't remember.
Did I use the bathroom, or did I
did I use the bathroom yesterday or today?
Was that yesterday or today? Anyway, you know,
all people can relate.
Do you do you have udu or you
don't?
You do. Because what you remember is
I made in the morning, and I prayed
fajr in the morning.
So
I have ududu. You know, I'm certain I
had ududu at 1 point, and now
I am not sure whether I broke that
wudu or not.
Okay?
So
3 out of the 4 maza had agreed
with this sort of
thought process or line of thinking.
1 must have disagreed. The Malekis disagreed.
They said
that
Salah
is obligatory
on you by certainty,
and,
it would not, you you know,
it will not be fulfilled
with doubt. That obligation can would not be
fulfilled
if you have doubt about your wudu.
So what is certain here is salat is
obligatory on you, and you must perform salah
with wudu. That is what is certain.
And now since you have doubt about your
Vodu,
then you must repeat,
the Vodu. You must make Vodu.
You know,
eventually, we will have to basically be making
choices,
and we will have to say, you know,
this mad hub was more correct than that
mad hub. This is not to undermine any
of the mad hub
or to be disrespectful to any of the
mad hub because 1 mad hub could be
corrected, you know, in 1 application
and incorrect in another application
and vice versa.
We should be basically
more
sort of thoughtful about this and more accepting
of things of that nature. It should not
be offensive at all to say, well,
the Medici's gonna try it here, or the
Hanbali is gonna try it here, or the
Hanafi is gonna try it here. That should
not be a problem. It's not disrespectful
to the other Muthaib to say
they their position
is, somewhat,
weaker,
here.
So
anyway,
but but,
we will come to this discussion in detail
inshallah when we come to the applications of
the Qaida,
but at least if you want my thoughts
about this, I believe that the Jumhur, the
majority,
were more correct
about the application of this Qaeda.
You had udu for certain,
you're not sure whether you broke it or
not,
then you do have udu.
It's you do have voodoo. So when you
pray,
you you have voodoo
because what was certain at 1 point
has not been overruled
by the subsequent doubt
about your Urdu. Anyway
so so because
the
so they would start by
the Al Qaad al Fakayakulei
Al Kobra and the branch of this of
this Qaad,
and then they would go on to addressing,
the other kuad that are agreed upon that
are not considered
as comprehensive
as these.
And that there is no book in the
Hanbali method
that follows this manner of organization.
Some of them would arrange them alphabetically,
like in Musawat,
like the encyclopedias.
They would arrange them alphabetically.
But this
this this tariqa or this manner of organization
in Azbaha'u Naza'i
is the most common 1, it and it
is the,
the easiest 1. It is the sort of
the most straightforward 1,
and it arranges the kava'aad in in groups,
and it is easier for the student of
knowledge to grasp the kawad,
this way. So I followed
in in my organization of the book, I
followed
this particular
manner of organization,
as in Asraha Nava'ir.
So
then what I did also is that I
included
many, many applications,
like I said, mostly from the Hambary Mezha
because of reasons I had already explained.
And
someone may ask,
okay,
someone may ask, and this is a legitimate
question because I ask I ask myself. This
is an advanced course.
Why are you teaching an advanced course on
vegan maxims in English?
What is the benefit of teaching
advances courses
on,
very specialized sciences
in English. And people have, you know,
I once I am
a friend of mine embarked on translating
Fadkel Berri,
and people ridiculed them. They said, like, what?
It translates Fathalbari?
For what purpose? Like whylike
someone who will read Fathalbari,
they'll probably they have probably already learned Arabic,
and they should be able to read Fathalbari
in Arabic.
And
that, you know,
whatever
you think about this rationale,
however, there are many benefits for transferring these
sciences
into English
and teaching them in English. So I mentioned
some of them,
and you may have read my my introduction,
but I said that
firstly translating Islamic sciences into these languages showcases
the beauty, wisdom, and harmony within the Sharia
to both Muslims
and non Muslims.
Muhammad Asad Rahimahullah
in his book Road to Mecca,
said about the Sharia,
I saw before me a perfect structure with
all its elements designed in harmony to complement
and support each other without any excess or
deficiency, a balance and harmony that gives 1
the feeling that everything in the Islamic
I have
I have found no subject
to showcase this particular concept,
the beauty, the coherence
of the Sharia
more than
Ligand Maxims.
That is why I chose Ligand Maxims.
And then I spoke about the urgency of
doing this, the urgency that we basically
elevate the discourse
and translate
these sciences into English and elevate the discourse
in English,
the discourse
on the Sharia, on Islam in general
in English, there is
some urgency here.
There is an urgent need, I said, to
convey this wisdom and beauty to the general
public, especially in light of the numerous attacks
on Sharia from its enemies,
the ignorance of many of its followers,
the superficial and even misguided nature of many
of its defenders'
postulates,
and the proliferation of erroneous
or repulsive rhetoric on social media
to the point that some have come to
believe that Islamic discourse
And this will be very
problematic
for many people
who will aspire for
sort of a deeper
discourse
than what they encounter.
Like,
and, you know,
the Islamic discourse is really profound.
It is extremely deep, and it is,
people are doing it injustice
by,
you know,
their superficial take
and presentation
of the Islamic
discourse.
Thirdly, I said,
and this is this is also important and
this is very important because like I said,
using people as
a means
is
mean.
You you don't use people as means but
so so I'm not basically
teaching
legal maxims because I want to teach legal
maxims. And that,
you know,
basically I had
this sort of unease.
Do I am I teaching legal maxims because
I want to teach legal maxims or because
I see a benefit in teaching legal maxims,
a benefit for the audience, not for me?
I believe that teach that there is a
huge benefit for the audience, Lighan Maxim, the
beauty
and coherence of Sharia. And you may say,
well, we're Muslim. We're we're already aware of
the beauty and coherence of Sharia.
Exposed to more
beauty,
your face increases because
likely your face is not like the face
of Abu Bakr,
So there is some room
for increase.
And
in addition to this, in addition to recognizing
the beauty of Sharia,
studying in legal maxims has great benefits in
enhancing a Muslim's and a student's
understanding and practice
of their religion. It also broadens their horizons
and develops their skills in comprehension,
analysis and decision making.
Comprehension analysis and decision making which brings significant
benefits to all aspects of their life.
And lastly,
I said that some students proficient in both
languages
still benefit from
studying these sciences in both languages.
And
that is not only true for students whose
main language
is a non Arabic language, or it is
even,
you know so you have people who perfected
a second
language,
people like,
Sheikh Daraz, for instance, Sheikh
Hassan Safari for instance, Sheikh Taqiyi
Din al Hilali for instance, these people perfected
another language whether it's English or French.
It
it did benefit them to perfect another language,
even though their their native was Arabic,
but it did benefit them to perfect another
language. It did benefit them to teach the
the the sciences that they have mastered in
Arabic to teach
them in English and to be
exposed to the literature
available
in a in a second language.
Then
you know, that was the introduction, and certainly
I ended the introduction by the
customary ending.
And
then the the first
chapter
or the first section because I divided the
book
into
4 sections
and
many chapters,
but the first section of the book will
be about
the preliminary
it's called the preliminary section
on the 10 introductory principles of the science
of legal maxims, 10 introductory
principles
of the science of legal maxims.
The second will be on
the second section of this book will be
on
the these
and their branches.
So the so called cobra,
called the fakayal kuleal kubra,
the real maxims that are cobra and their
their branches.
The third will be on the independent,
that are not cobra, vayaril cobra. I will
not call them sohra,
minor because they are not minor.
But rayerl cobra, they're not major,
kawad or principles. They're independent kawad
or,
principles.
Like a Taaba Taaba for instance.
Like, let's.
It's not overrode.
Like, basically, the the
the sort of,
how do you translate this? So Ra'i is
the ruler,
and Tazarroof
would be basically the
practice of the Ra'i in their ruling,
is contingent on or
contingent on the interest of,
the ruled.
Anyway, we'll we'll find a good translation for
it when we when we come to it.
So so anyway, the
these are independent linear maxims,
that do not fit neatly under 1 of
these 5.
So we this would be the 3rd section,
the independent Liegand maxims
that are not branches
of
these 5.
And the last section will be on ad
Dawabit and fakayyah.
And
ad Dawabit,
people
like usual, people will disagree over how you
you translate this.
So you could call them regulators or controllers.
I felt that calling
basically is
a is a legal maxim in a sense
that regulates,
the
the fatwa or the rulings
in a very limited scope. In a very
limited scope. In 1 chapter. Within 1 chapter.
I personally feel that
is above it. It's not
every debt
that,
brings about benefit for the debtor for the
creditor. I'm sorry. Every debt that brings about
a benefit for the creditor
is reba is
reba. I don't need translate reba.
But
so this is
why why do I consider this although
this would become controversial?
Because it is limited in its scope.
And you could apply this to marriage. You
could apply this to financial transactions.
You could apply this to a badat,
to Salah and Wudu, like we said. You
could apply this everywhere,
in all chapters.
But Kulukar din Jarrah Nafan belongs to a
particular you know, it regulates a particular
set of rulings
that pertain to
RIBA.
Then,
so these are the 4 sections.
The first 1 is
about the
introductory,
principles,
the 10 introductory
principles. What are the 10 introductory principles? What
what do we mean by a 10 introductory
principles anyway?
So when they teach a particular science, they
want to
familiarize
the audience, the student, with
the,
sort of the bird's view of the science
and an outline.
They want to introduce the science
to the student, and
they have
there there are
10 principles that you want to follow,
to introduce a science to a student.
What are these? Sheikh Sabara,
gathered them in another
or verses of poetry
in which he said,
and the meter will not be broken if
you say instead of
I I like
vanisbetuhuwafaduhuw
Okay.
Okay. Remind
me.
So my bad here, the principles
of every science
Hasharatin,
alhad definition,
And
subject matter.
Is samara the benefit
or the fruit. Means
fruit
or
or or benefit.
Relationship
means relationship to other
disciplines.
Relationship.
It's virtue,
while Wada, its founder,
enlist its name.
And where did the where where did the
name come from?
And
the Al Islamdat sources,
the ruling of the Sharaa.
It's it's Sharia ruling. The the is it
for the Kifaya to learn it? For the
Haynaturah
to learn it? Is it Mustahaba
to learn
it? Its topics or issues,
topics.
Some would suffice with some of these
Umandar al Jamia Hazar Sharafa.
He who encompasses all of them or knows
all of them had attained
honor.
So so these are the the the this
is what we will be talking about in
the
first section.
We will be talking about
the
the definition. We'll start by the definition because
that's what they
start with.
Wait.
We'll start by the definition. We'll talk about
the subject matter also with the definition,
the benefits, the the virtue,
the relationship to other sciences, basically its relationship
to usul al fiqh and fiqh and other
related sciences of, Sharia.
Its name its its name with with we
will talk about the name with the Had.
And then the sources
and,
Sharia ruling,
as well as examples of some
of
the topics.
So the first
basically thing that they talk about when they,
address any science
Okay.
So what what do they usually start with?
They usually start with a definition.
They usually start with a definition,
which is alhad.
Why do they call this alhad?
And Hamlet.
Okay.
Sometimes we'll branch off just to to make
sure that
To make sure we have, like, a comprehensive
approach to the topic,
sometimes we will branch off a little bit.
So forgive me.
El Had becomes El Had is basically,
introduced
into the different sciences from the science of
mantha mantha.
Mantha.
Logic.
Because
Aristotle felt that
you can't have conceptualization
without a definition,
and he felt that there is definition proper
which we translated as al Hadid.
By the way,
why was logic translated into mantak?
Nataka means what? Spoke.
Because,
Arabs put a lot of emphasis on speech.
So
for us, our mantaf is nah
because it it guides,
the speech.
And once you regulate your speech,
you regulate your thought
as well.
So eventually, logic was translated as
mantak,
but mantak is is basically about speaking.
Even in the definition of
the,
rational animal,
So the definition of insane according to Aristotle
is what? Rational animal.
We translated this as haiwan nautuk.
Basically,
if you translate this literally, it would be
speaking animal.
It is actually a Russian animal. It was
translated as Haywan Latik, but they recognize that
Motke here means,
reason, understanding,
rationality.
Anyway, but this is this is part of
it. So
quickly,
let me tell you, you know,
where this, belongs and why al Hadh is
important
even though
I
have basically
a Taemian
take
on mantep.
But let me tell you what the Taemian
take on mantep is. The treyme and take
on mantac
is not
basically
to dispose of mantac altogether,
but to,
examine it critically.
So when you examine any discipline or science,
you don't want to be oppositional,
but you still want to be critical.
You should you don't have you should not
be oppositional,
but you should be critical.
And I'll I'll I'll just in order for
us to to know where this belongs to
the general discussion,
why it had this a big deal
and why it should be a big deal.
Let me tell you this.
So the science of logic in general, Aristotelian
logic, and I'm talking about Aristotelian logic or
Monte Cassori,
Aristotelian logic.
It's all about
assumptions that all knowledge belongs to 2 categories.
1 category is called Tassawar,
conceptualization,
and the other 1 is called Tasdikat
or Tasawurah,
conceptualizations,
and
assertions,
judgments,
assertions.
And
in order for you to have
conceptualization,
Like,
when we say insan,
you have to have a conceptualization
of what that means, what insan means.
And then when you say,
al insan
natuk,
This is an assertion.
This is basically
an assertion that is composed of a subject
and a predicate,
and
then you this assertion will be accepting of
affirmation and negation.
Conceptualization
does not is not amenable
to affirmation or negation. It's just conceptualization.
There is no relationship
here whether it is affirmatory or negatory.
There is nothing about affirmation or negation here.
You're just talking about a conceptualization.
And el kulia,
these are the universal categories,
the 5 universal categories
are needed to
needed for
Elhad,
which is definition proper according to Aristotle,
and that is
the ultimate,
basically,
the ultimate way
for conceptualization.
You need a had for conceptualization.
All knowledge belongs to conceptualizations
and assertions.
And for conceptualization,
you need a had. And for alhad,
you need to have an understanding
of the 5 categorical,
universals.
What are the 5 categorical universals?
So elgence
basically is the genus,
and nawa is the
species.
Alfastha is the differentia.
Al Fazda is the property.
Al A'rad is
accident.
And
in order for you to have definite a
definition that is proper definition,
these 3 are called what? Zati or essential?
These 2 are called what?
Accidental or Haradi?
In order for you to have the perfect
definition
according to Aristotle,
you need
elgens
with elgens,
elgens,
the genus, and the differentia.
Example because examples make things clear.
When you say it in Sanghayan Natuk,
the human is a rational animal.
The human is a rational animal.
What is animal? Al jins, the genus.
Al jinsan belongs to that genus.
Animal.
How did you differentiate the human from the
rest of the animals?
By saying rational.
So linsan
is a rational animal.
So you have the genus and the differentiator.
How does the differentiator
well, INSAN is a species.
How does the differentia differ from
the property which is alhasa?
When you say el insan, katib.
Katib is what? Writer.
By potency or by actuality?
By potency,
this
this Khassa,
you know, do do you know of any
other animal that who writes or that writes?
No.
So it's Hasa.
It's specific for
the insan.
Hasa,
a property that's specific for the insan.
And then
you,
you have the accident,
which is a property
that is not specific.
When you say it insan, haiwanumeshi.
An insan is an animal that walks.
Are there many other animals that walk as
well?
Yes.
So while this is true for the insan,
it is not does not sort the insan
out from other animals. So it's called,
it's it's called an arab, an accident. In
order for you to have
a definition,
a proper,
definition,
you will have to have the jinns and
the fasd.
Why fasdlat al khasa?
Because if you say it in San Haywan
on Katib, does it do a job the
does it do the job? Yes.
It does.
Okay. But
he said that this is an essential
attribute, and this is not an essential attribute.
So not a rational is an essential attribute.
CATHIB is not an essential attribute.
But we we have a contention against this
because CATIB is either CATIB bil koa, CATIB
bi CATIB bil koa or CATIB bil fahl.
So CATIB by potency
or cater by actuality.
Cata by potency
should apply to every enzyme.
Every enzyme is categorical.
So this this distinction itself
between essential and accidental
is
is basically,
a man it it is not only at
a main contention, but many people recognize
that
that this this distinction is not does not
really hold true. And then
okay. So you got to you got to
the definition.
Before I moved to tazdikat
and this is a very quick summary because
inshallah, our next,
class would be on mantuk, but this is
the sort of the
5 minute summary of
the mantak.
But before I move to,
taz dekata or assertions,
here is, like, a few time in contentions.
Maybe, like, he had tons of them,
but,
a few time in contentions
against against Manukan general.
He said that most of the people, most
civilizations, the Chinese and so on and so
forth,
they had,
sort of accomplished
civilizations
without
no 1 wanted. So it's unnecessary.
Who agreed with him completely on this?
Bertrand Bertrand Russell.
He said,
if you want to do yourself a favor,
don't waste time learning Aristotelian logic.
But anyway,
so so that was
1. The second is
the 2 assumptions
the 2 assumptions that were made about al
Hadid that it is,
necessary and sufficient. Necessary for conceptualization
and sufficient.
He basically tore them apart.
It's not it's not necessary
nor sufficient for conceptualization.
He said,
if you
first of all, he said,
when you say Al insan Qayaw An Nata,
You say that you can't have any conceptualization
except through Had,
definition proper.
Okay.
You told me at Insein, I want to
talk. You actually went from the species, which
everybody knows
in sand,
to something that's a little bit more subtle
and a little bit more subtle in in
in definition because there are many types of
hyaonatome.
They all look different
and so on. So you made this a
little bit more difficult by going
to the genus.
And then
you,
you said, Natak.
I don't have a conceptualization
of the Hayawan or the Nautic
based on
your,
proposition
except through a definition.
Define both for me.
And if you have to define the hiya
wan, you have to use
gins and fosk.
And if you have
and then
define those for me. And then define those
for me, and it leads to the the
cell cell.
Because every time you give me a definition,
it's composed of 2 parts. I want you
to define the 2 parts,
and then each 1 will be composed of
2 parts.
And then if you say that it goes
back to our idea, axiomatic
knowledge,
I will tell you, okay,
Vincent is,
you know, is quite clear in front of
most of the people.
But anyway, so this was 1 contention.
He said that had you not seen the
insan,
it would you know, this idea that the
Taiwan part will give you a conceptualization
of the insane without seeing an insane
is false.
It's false.
And and the other definitions, you know, Al
hamar Haywan Nahak for instance.
Al Hassan haywan Sahib.
You're
if I, haywan Nahak, you know,
the * brays
or the is an animal
that brays.
If I don't
if I if I did not hear the
the brain of the *, that definition
would have never
given me any
capacity to conceptualize,
Al Himar
or the donkey
or the sound of the so
at any rate, he said,
if you don't have if you don't have
an empirical
experience
of these things,
the definition will will get you nowhere in
conceptualization.
And
the definition
is not necessary for conceptualization,
either. So it's neither sufficient,
nor,
necessary.
But keep in mind that in Mu'arifat
for us
and also in our standard logic because, he
has definition proper and he has cause of
definition and he
has,
what else? And the so al Muharifa, the
the, the nominal definition the nominal definition.
So tareef for us, when you make tareef
of a particular topic, a particular subject, a
particular science, anything,
you make atarif
by what is called a hab or a
rasm or a love.
And under a rasb, there are different ways
of making tareef.
So
we will not get into the, you know,
the the
the details of this, but this would be
definition proper, and this would be, sort of
a descriptive
definition,
and this would be a nominal definition.
Aristotle had a causal definition. I don't know
if he had
if he had something that would correspond to
rasme for us exactly.
Does he, Jake?
No.
So the I don't think that he has
something that corresponds
to RASM in in particular.
So RASM is basically when you have
a definition that is not a complete definition.
You go to the higher genus, not the
nearer genus.
You give definition by the genus and
the property,
versus the genus and the differentia.
That would be called erasmu. But we also
use
taksim and tamsil
for our definitions. Taksim is when you
when you say,
for instance,
that
name verb or,
what?
So this is a this is a definition
according to us because it gives you
a conceptualization
of what we're talking about, taksim,
when you say that
water is H2O.
So 2 atoms of hydrogen, 1 atom of
oxygen
is water.
Does this give you the does this give
you an idea about water? It gives you
an idea, but it is not necessarily a
definition proper.
And in fact,
most of,
you know,
nobody follows Aristotelian
logic in natural sciences and most of the
universities in the world.
Nobody
basically waits for definite,
a proper definition
to conceptualize
anything.
Having said all of that, why am I
saying this?
Because
despite the time in contentious against
Al Had
been necessary,
you know, and sufficient
for conceptualization
for conceptualization.
He did not deny
the importance of alhad,
the importance of alhad. He said alhad is
important.
Alhad is important not for conceptualization
of tasawur.
Al had is important for
Tami'i's
distinction, to distinguish 1 thing from another.
He's he was completely for a good habt,
for a good definition
for Tamiz, to distinguish 1 thing from another
because ad habt does not is neither necessary
for conceptualization
nor sufficient,
but it is important for
TANIZ.
So should we be starting
every
sort
of book or every class
by addressing alhad or tareef?
Yes, we should.
Because it is important for atamiz.
So when I give you a good hadd
or tareef
of Al Qaad Al Shaka'yah that we mentioned
before,
you will be able to tell the difference
between
Al Qawad Al Fakayyah
and Al
and Usoley.
You will be able to tell the difference
between Al Qaad Al Fakhaia and Fakhaia. You
will be able to tell the difference between
Al Qaad Al Fakhaia and
You will be able to tell the difference
between
and so on and so forth.
So
it tell you to distinguish
this particular science from other sciences,
not necessarily
full conceptualization.
If I give you many applications,
you will have a conceptualization
of the,
subject of the Par de Tejeya. And and
just to finish this particular
istetrad
or
branching off,
According to Aristotle,
there is only categorical syllogism
that will result in knowledge.
So syllogistic
reasoning,
not analogical,
not inductive.
And the difference between syllogistic reasoning and analog
analogical and inductive reasoning is what? Synergistic reasoning,
you're you're coming from a universal that could
could lead to particulars.
So the the
the most common example is
what?
Every man is mortem.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is a mortal.
That's esologism.
So the main contention against this is
okay.
I agree with you. That is good. It
actually, the the that formula results in,
the the you know, if these premises
are correct,
the conclusion is correct. He agrees. He particularly
agrees with what's called the shaklal Awwal or
the first form.
So we okay. Good.
How how helpful is that? Like, how do
you produce knowledge like this?
Knowledge is produced by coming from particulars to
universals, ascending from particulars to universals
to
particulars to universals to basically to put down
laws and, for the universe and so on.
You have to come from particulars
to,
universals. When you descend from universals to particulars,
how is that beneficial?
How is it beneficial anyway? Everybody knows that
Socrates is, is is mortal.
And
he says,
you say that
inductive reasoning
does not result in knowledge.
How did you figure out that every man
is mortal if not if it is not
through inductive reasoning?
Every man is mortal. What you mean every
man is mortal? How did how do you
know that every man is mortal?
Every man I saw
was mortal.
Well, did he see old men?
So that is a that is that is
that is in that is incomplete induction.
It's incomplete inductive reasoning. That is the kra'a
nakas.
You have not seen old men to say
that every man is mortem.
So
the
so basically,
your assumption
or your proposition
that we can only reach knowledge through syllogism,
not through induction.
And the issue here for imam ibn al
imam abila blessed naytaymeyah
was the fact that
through induction, you could come to certainty in
the existence of God. You look at the
signs in the universe,
you come to,
certainty in the existence of God. Because
if you require
syllogism to come to certainty for the existence
of God, that will always be a matter
of debate and a matter of philosophical contention.
And he also wanted to defend analogical reasoning.
So when you say
when we say,
al kul muskar and haram or when we
say
that Khamr is Haram before because Khamr is
Musker,
and that is the Allah.
And we say that Nabiid is
Musqir,
therefore Nabiid is haram.
That is analogical reasoning. Analogical
reasoning is when you
give a particular
the same ruling as another particular
because of
sharing the same alah or effective cause.
Sharing the same alah
or reason or effective cause,
same rationale.
You say that this is that this does
not
lead to knowledge,
but
if you say,
You say this this leads to knowledge.
These are the same premises that are here,
are here,
and you say 1 of them because of
the form
leads to
knowledge, 1 does not lead to knowledge. He
say he says, if you can identify the
Ayala, which would be the middle term in
your syllogism,
The middle term is the. Musker is the
middle term, and it is
in your syllogism. If you can accurately identify
the
you could
accurately,
deduce
through analogical reasoning,
a proposition, a true proposition through analogical reasoning.
Anyway,
so he says that
most of the knowledge
that is produced,
most of the beneficial knowledge
has to come through
induction and analogy,
you know,
from from particulars to universals.
Induction is from particulars to universals.
You know? And this is how you in
the first place got to every man as
mortal, through induction.
And then,
then analogy,
which is from part from a particular to
another particular.
But to come down for through syllogism from
universal to a who
agreed
with him
completely
a few 100 years later?
John Stuart Mill.
He said
the most futile thing
is syllogistic,
categorical syllogism
because it
it you keep on coming down from universals
to particulars,
how helpful could that be?
But he did not deny
that a a good syllogism
results in knowledge. He did not deny that
a good syllogism results in knowledge. That is
why
we will study logic, inshallah.
That is why it is helpful to study
logic
and to come to it not
from
sort of a, like, an emotionally
oppositional
attitude
because you don't like Aristotle, no. You know,
Aristotle was a genius. Of course he
was.
Studying this knowledge will bewill have some benefits,
but you come to it with a critical
mind, not an oppositional
emotional
mind,
but with a critical mindset.
So next time, insha'Allah, when we when we
come back, we will start with Alhad,
for Al Qadu Fakayyah
or
for the definition
for.
Related Episodes
- AbdelRahman Murphy – Talking Young – Ground Their Beliefs NOW
- Tom Facchine – The Struggle for a United Community – Dogma Disrupted
- Yasir Qadhi – Was Selecting a Khalifa MORE Important than the Prophet’s Muhammad Burial
- Maryam Lemu – Unleash the Power of Intimacy Let’s Dive into this Taboo Topic! #2
- Muhammad Salah – Gardens Of The Pious #409
- Zakir Naik – Why Should there be Only One God
- Tahir Wyatt – Names of Allah – Episode 13 – Al-Raoof