Qawa’id fiqhiyya #03
Channel: Ibrahim Hindy
Series: Ibrahim Hindy - Qawa'id Fiqhiyya
File Size: 63.27MB
Bismillah Alhamdulillah wa salatu salam ala Rasulillah him either Ali he was a happy woman who Allah on the show, he saw that he was really angry. Why are the opposite Emily's any of Kabul probably.
So Inshallah, before he starts reminded me to plug in sha Allah, we have a fundraising dinner on Friday.
Hmm Tom Facchini from the US children's joining us. So if you're able to purchase a ticket and come to support and Shala we really need this support. So like very few tickets, so inshallah I need support will be appreciated in the play inshallah. So we spoke last week about the first of the polite
and, you know, teenagers would always check.
sorry, we spoke last week about accosted. Yeah.
And today inshallah we'll speak about the second of the five major or major,
legal Maxim's, and there are many rules, and many laws in the SNAM that are connected to this. In order to understand this statement to understand this legal Maxim and European certainty, lie as rule is not replaced by shock by doubt. To understand this, we have to understand two things First, what is the opinion and what is check? Right? So European is an arthropod Al Jazeera belief. So I believe that you assert
something that is known that you believe that you believe to be true. That is the FDA
check dealt with the scholars of FIP
with the football hat,
and you have to write with the football hat is my handle at that it is the place of hesitancy.
any hesitancy the absolution of has hesitancy in the views of Scott and the views of the scholars of Philip is considered check is considered doubt. So
if we have two options, or if I tell you is, whatever it is, we're talking about, is it true or false? And in your mind
50% It might be true 50% It might be false to you the possibilities are equal.
The scholars of FIP will call this check, this is doubt. Okay.
What if I asked you, is it true or false? And you say,
I think 30% chance it might be true. And I think 70% chance it's false. So I think 30% is true, most likely, it's false. But maybe it's true.
This is also check with the scholars.
And what if you said again, what if we said it's 80% 80%? I'm I think it's true.
And 20% chance it's wrong, but 80% I think it's true, but the scholars have 50 Again this is checked. So all of these are shared
with the scholars of azul.
This is not what they say.
With the scholars of the soul,
if one is Roger is more likely outweighs the other. So, if one of them is 80%
then the 80% is called Ven.
Ven is something you assume or something you think this is one
and l Marjo. The thing that is less likely, that is 20% 30%. You think it might be true? They call this one?
if something is 50% true, 50% False they call this
who can tell me?
anything less than 100% for the scholars of fit for the fuqaha is considered check.
But for the scholars of the soul
if it's more likely it's one if it's equal probability it is check and if it is less likely it is one
and this was stated by Imam and now we
in his shot has to be Muslim. It's mentioned by meme bati as well. And Christopher dinar which is important book for the humble, is it no play you mentioned this as well the differentiation with
mean the word check with the scholars have fit in between the scholars of soil.
And based on this, if you open a book effect,
and in the book effect, it says, Whoever is certain of the earth Ohara
of their purity. And they have check, they have doubts about their had their impurity, they should act upon the certainty. How do we understand this check?
According to the definition of the focal hat or the definition of also the
the focal Ha, because it's a book effect, right. And this is important, because it's a very common mistake. Some people will read the definition of shock from the Wilsonian then they come to the books of Philip, and they are using that language, that definition in the books of fear. And this is a big mistake, right? We conflate between these two meanings. And you're interpreting the words of one people by the meaning of another people.
And that's a mistake that people make that's very important to understand that difference. So now based on this that we've all talked about right now, yes.
So if it is more likely to be true, they call that one.
And if it's less likely to be true, they call it wham.
So based on all that, we've said right now, whoever is searching that they made will do
that for saltan. I shot right now you're searching, you made a model. And then before you pray, all of a sudden, you start to doubt. Am I impure or not? And he thinks maybe there's a 30% chance I'm impure? What do we tell him?
Does he assume isn't a state of purity or not?
We weren't? We weren't?
So if he certainly made will do, and then he has doubts? Did I? Did I break my rule or not?
We tell him to stick with his will.
And if he was 5050? Or if he said 80% chance I broke my world? Or
do we tell him to continue to pray? Or do we tell him go and make will do which one?
Continue to pray? Because we stick to the clean? Because in the eyes of the football hat, anything less than 100%? Is check. In the eyes of the football hat, anything less than 100% is considered shot.
Now, is it possible? Yes. So for free this hour,
the full backup. So basically, any, any percentage less than 100.
Any percentage less than 100 is considered out.
Okay, so now based on everything we said,
is it possible for your opinion to be displaced by one by assumption?
by more than 50% probability? Do we displace it?
No. And because of this, some of the scholars have another clarity that they have another legal Maxim matheba to VPN layer tougher in Libya. What is established by European is not removed except by epi. Right? So this is another way of saying it. That if we are searching if something it does not get removed, unless we're searching by something else, so if I'm searching I made it will do. It does that never changes until I'm certain that I don't have my
Remember, we spoke I think a couple of
classes ago about a man who doubts whether he divorced his wife or not. So he comes in he says, You know, I was really angry. And you know, we're having an argument. I don't remember if I told her she's divorced or not.
We go based on what?
We go based on what is certain. So he's certain he's married to her. He's unsure if he divorced her, even if he's 90%. Sure, even if he says you know what shift. I think I probably did say it. I probably did tell her she's divorced, but I don't remember, we say doesn't matter. You remain married to her until you are sure that you're divorced.
So the definition of this bar, though, is that if a person has an assertion in his heart
So, that something is proven or that something is absent he's sure that something exists or something does not exist
then he has no right to abandon this
due to the existence of something that emerges or is suggested to him
rather he should act according to the original certainty and he should not give regard to an emergent delts.
surely there must be some other
this by then all of them agree this is one of the major of collide
So, this far the only applies to matters we should say, this is a very important point you want to write this down this guy the only applies to what we say. And I can apply the via and filter here. actions of jurisprudence, filthy issues, basically.
And it does not apply to matters that are hardly
matters of creed or belief or anything like that. What do we mean by that? Right now, if I asked for we asked this Allah exist,
everyone says yes. Okay. Are you searching that Allah exists? 100% search, okay. If someone has doubts about this, not a passing thought Shavon whispering something here, but like a doubt about this. He says I'm doubtful. I don't know if he loves this or not.
Do we say the opinion is we don't we check? No, he say, I do think that's Misha, right? This European has been removed by his doubt. He doesn't have any man anymore. Right. His belief in Allah's existence is gone. Right? So this is only for issues that are going to be issues related to commandments related to orders related to fifth, right? So you're asked to pray, you don't know that I break my will do or not. These are filthy issues, issues of commandment, we hold on to the certainty, and we ignore all that is doubtful. And this is the meaning of this legal Maxim.
From the proofs of this, the evidence is of this and of course, there are many, many in the Quran, and mostly in the Hadith that we can rely upon a few clear ones the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, if any of you has a pain in his stomach, and he is doubtful as to whether anything has come from him, meaning if he has passed gas, then he should not leave the masjid. And until he hears a sound hot day, yes, Metro solten, we Edgenuity until he hears a sound or perceives the smell. And the scholars talk about this hadith, they say, when the Prophet says until he hears a sound, or he smells, the smell, is not literal. Meaning the prophet is not saying only leave, if you hear the
sound, or if you smell it, what the Prophet is saying is leave when you are certain.
Right? So if you're not sure, and the only thing that establishes what establishes your certainty is the sound or the smell, then once you're certain leave, but if you are certain, and you didn't smell anything, but you're certain that happened, then you also have to leave, right? So the point of this hadith are saying, It's not meant to be literal with the point of the hadith is,
don't leave the prayer, don't leave the message until you are searching, when you are searching, you broke your will then then leave in that scenario.
And so he can't leave the opinion that exists until another European comes. And this is a very, very powerful protection, by the way, against WhatsApp. Right. It's a very powerful protection, that sometimes we start to wonder did I on my online or not on my search, and I made a will do or not.
And so we always go to this is an easy rule. What are you searching up you searching the broker, you search and you have it, you search a new ad will do that philosophy. You don't turn to anything until you're certain that you broke it. And the opposite is true as well. And so everyone Rajib Rahim Allah he says whoever is searching of purity or impurity in the body, or in the earth or upon their clothing, it is doubtful that this one is doubtful that the state has been removed. So you're searching of impurity and you're uncertain, it's changed, or you're searching of impurity, and you're uncertain, it changed whatever the case is. Fab in the US he should build based upon the
original state he should act based upon the original state until he is sure that it has changed. And he says in the follow button one, the high probability is not enough. Neither is anything else. So now shows you very clearly
With that, when the scholars say shuck the mean, any type of hesitancy, it doesn't matter if it's a small amount, or if it's a lot of attention. You're 95% Sure this happened 99% Sure, doesn't matter, you have to be completely sure. You have to have complete certainty. You know, clean does not get displaced except with another European.
Also the hadith of our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he said, If any of you is in delta over his Sada, either Chaka Khan, for your solidarity, he fell near that he comes salah, he's not sure how many prayers how many times has he prayed three or four. The Prophet says, Let him cast aside his doubts, and base his prayer on what he is sure of. So I'm not sure that I pray three, because we're four, I'm sure I prayed three, I'm not sure if I prayed the fourth. So I go with three, and cast aside my doubt.
And so based on what we have said,
if we have European, we do not turn towards London, because London is a form of check.
oops, go back.
However we say
So based on what we've said, if you have your theme, you do not ever turn towards London, because of London's a form of check.
But there are some areas in which the football hat did rely upon one did act upon one. So I'll give you an example.
Let's say you're in a Muslim country.
You're in a village somewhere, and you're sitting and talking. And then the other thing gives the event.
It's the time for us of prayer.
And in principle we are in the daytime, or let's say it's awesome when he makes the event for Muslim, for example.
And the principle is that we're in the daytime, right?
And the night does not become established except with evidence. We're sitting outside we haven't seen the sunset. Well we hear the mother give the nap. We heard one person give the event right?
Is it permissible for us to pray on that event or not?
So we do pray.
Because the prophets Allah Allah told us to pray when
when we hear the event, okay. However, the event of that one person, is it clean? Or is it one because it's a testimony of one person. It's not your it's not Qatari. It's not you know, cleaning. It's done. It's possible one person made a mistake. However, we are doing what the shut er has told us to do. So there should be I tells us when we hear that whatever, then make the event we pray, because we start with a principle that the that the event is I mean, other than is trustworthy. We have that starting principle.
Okay, I'll give you another example.
We'll pick on zt for close to Okay, Zaid is innocent right of murder, he's innocent of theft. Whoever the person is to pick on someone to pick up Muhammad. Muhammad is innocence of murder in in fact, correct. Do we know this from European or do we know this from gun?
When we say that he's innocent, he has the presumption of innocence.
We're assuming it.
No, we say it's European. Why do we say it's your pain? Because we know he entered the world. And he wasn't a murderer. He wasn't a thief. We know at the beginning, he was not a murderer, a thief. Okay. So based on that yesterday and we're continuing, right? So if we say what is the establishment of him being innocent, we see the establishment is your thing. Okay. Now two trustworthy witnesses, the two brothers here come forward. And they say we saw him kill someone
and they go to the judge
and they say we saw the murderer and etc, etc. Or they say we saw him steal and he was stealing from somebody who is protected and he stole a great amount of money
and they go to the judge and the judge says Okay, you two are trustworthy
and you have both given me your witness. So now we have to punish.
What is the opinion, his original innocence or his culpability for the claim of the Two Witnesses which one is the opinion
the claim, because as long as you have evidence to back it up,
isn't it possible
that the two of you are lying?
Even if we know you to be trustworthy, isn't it possible the two of you are alive? It's possible.
So technically, your testimony is one, and his innocence is your team.
And yet, the judge will still punish him.
But you're getting away.
Why is this the case?
Simple, because there's a welcome shot, right? Because there's an Islamic ruling on this matter. Islamic ruling is that if two witnesses come forward and they are trustworthy, then this is enough for the punishment. Right? So because of sir.
exactly when he he can he can look at these two people, he knows that they're established, they're trustworthy, nobody can say that. They're liars. And then he has to take the testimony. The point is, he is acting upon the one over the opinion. And we say this happens, because this is her shot I
had it makes sense. Obviously, if we said the testimony of witnesses is not going to be accepted, because it is possible, they're lying, that nobody will ever be punished for murder, or theft or anything like that. Because we're always going to, you know, have the claims that are made are always going to have some money, right. So these are some issues in fifth in which we may act upon. So if there is a charge if there is a evidence, like the testimony for the good, or the sunset, for a fasting person. So the scholars say
if someone is fasting, and they have one of us one,
in their minds that the sun has set its method.
So they're 90 90% sure that it's melted. Can they break their fast? The folklore hat will say they can break their fast, but it is better to wait until they have the opinion. But it is permissible for them. So the sunset for the fasting person, this is an example. There's a few other examples as well.
I don't I don't know the reasons not to but this is an area where they give precedence to have unlimited money.
I don't think so. That's my knowledge.
That is technically still we act upon
the witness to say,
Yeah, that's true. Because not everybody
has to see it. Absolutely. Yeah, you're right. Actually, that is an example.
Okay, where do we not act upon one?
Like we mentioned, we'll go into hora. So somebody doubts there, we'll do notes there taharah we don't act upon their their assumption. Somebody who doubts or assumes maybe he divorced his wife. And I was really angry. I didn't know what I was saying. Again, we don't use a fundamental one here. So men check feasible hauraton AlFalah
Oh, or the raka RT have prayed they have checked in on any of this or the number of times they've gone around the camera during the show off or the number of times they've breastfed a baby all of these we go with the lesser with what we are searching when we have doubt
Okay, there are a number of sub Maxim's related to this one is
the definition what is that definition?
Do they have so in areas of ozone, it will come up
getting drunk driving the ruling they will use that
And like we said, there are some areas of filk where we will use one and so in that case, we will be looking for instance, they will say you can act upon one or you can act upon with a limited one. Right. So, these are also the definitions now.
Okay, the first principle allows you to record Americana on American, the principle is that things remain as they were.
And many scholars consider this sky that to be synonymous with the previous one. And yet the United superficie because they are very similar and
Some of these are in fact very similar to each other
things remain as they have been established to be unless we are searching for change. This is what this means. So you made Wolfram Alpha, this is established. Ayesha prayer comes, you doubt your will, we say in principle, things remain as they were. So, nothing has changed. Likewise, for, for example, somebody, we established that somebody took a loan for $1,000.
So, let's say we established that I took a loan from Mohammad for $1,000. Then
I clean the I return the $1,000. But I don't have any proof whose statement is taken.
Because, you know, that he knows that he bought, because we established that I borrowed the money. We have not established anything beyond that, because there's no proof. I don't have proof, he doesn't have proof, there's no proof that exists. So things remain as they were. So they remain that I borrowed
And us look at them, this is the second one, that the presumption of innocence or the principle of innocence.
So Bharat means innocence. Vemma
is, this is a definition, if you want to write it, the description that comes upon a Micallef
so the description that comes upon a responsible person that makes them party to obligation or commitments.
So the Arabs will say, if somebody broke their vow, there's a vowel between them or treaty between them and someone breaks it. They say nothing metal, his dinner has fallen.
Or if somebody is insane,
then they say, Levin Machado, he has no them. So this is a description, that this is a person who can be obliged, can commit.
Just like you cannot oblige somebody who doesn't have their mind faculty, he doesn't have them. And you cannot oblige somebody who breaks the treaty with you, if you have peace with them, and they break the treaty, you can't oblige them, you can't expect them to do anything, right. So this is the number. So the human beings should have eaten hazards.
And we assume the Zima is innocence, essentially.
So the meaning of this is that ALLAH SubhanA, Allah created us innocence. And we break the mouth, if we commit murder, or theft, or drinking alcohol or whatever, but in principle, the person is innocence.
So say some person accuses another of theft, or of stealing, or of murder, or whatever it might be.
We say the principle is we assume that they're innocent.
And who needs to bring the evidence in this scenario?
The accused is
the one who's making the claim. So for example, it's.
Say daily return hours, but you
to find out
because from the judge, you're looking at it from the judges perspective, versus the judges perspective, you got to say there's no evidence, I have to stick with what's established, which is not alone was made.
So ALLAH SubhanA, Allah knows, and the person who's lying is sinful, but we're looking at it from the perspective of a jurist of a judge, right? So the judge is going to make decisions based on what has been established with evidence.
So what this means is
granted them or what its meaning, like, this is not from like, tisski perspective, if I do I'm gonna can I be forgiven for my sins? And so what this means is, we assume that the person is innocent.
Unless it's been proven to be broken, right, unless this has been proven to be broken. That's That's all this fire that means.
So of course, if someone commits evil, and they make Toba and they turn to Allah azza wa jal, Allah can forgive them. But that's not the point of this. The point of this is, do we assume
From the beginning that a person is innocent, or do we assume from the beginning that they are wrongdoing? We assume the innocence. So an example.
If a person says,
like in a similar example, we say like took $1,000, someone took $1,000 from me, who has to bring the evidence.
So, the one making the accusation. So if I say you took $1,000 from me, we sat in front of the judge, I'm making the accusation that you took 1000 from me, I have to prove it, right.
And if you reject it, all you have to do is swear,
a testimony that you did not take it.
Okay, so what if in the case?
Let's say Mohammed says, The I took $10,000 from
and I see no, I only took 5000 from her.
And there's no evidence for me, there's no evidence for him.
What's the ruling here?
The ruling is the 5000. Why?
Because we both agreed for at least 5000. We'll say he's saying 10,000. I'm saying it was only 5000. But we both agreed that at least 5000 was taken. So it'll be the 5000 will be agreed upon, and the other 5000 will not be acknowledged.
Mix Apple predicts resemble the moment where somebody says
okay, let's say someone comes and says
there was an issue and I swore an oath.
Sorry, there was an issue and I don't remember if I swore an oath or not.
Maybe I think I swore an oath to Allah. But I don't remember if I did. Does he have to do a quick follow or not?
No, because we assume,
in principle, is the same as innocence. So even innocent of swearing an oath? Right.
Okay, the next Florida and asked Warren, Irina, and Adam, the principle in the emergent or the incidental matters is non existence.
And this two is pretty similar to the previous five as well.
And the meaning here is that
the principle and attributes that are ID law that are emergent, or new, we assume it's non existence. And Oppositely, the scholars will say that the principle in the attributes that exist originally exist is that we assumed their existence. So what do we mean by that? Someone has taken a loan, we established the loan has been taken.
Now he claims I paid back the loan.
What is it that exists? And what is it that is emergent?
What's what's new that's being offered and what else already exists?
So the new part is the claim he returned the loan, and the existence is
the loan itself, because we already said We established the loan.
So what is new, the principle of it is that it does not exist. It's non existence, and he has to prove that it in fact, exists. And so many examples of this a woman doubts did I breastfeed this baby or not?
So we say the principles Adam, it didn't happen.
A man divorces his wife.
And then he says, I don't remember if during the day I took her back or not somebody came to me and told me you should take her back and etc, etc. And I don't remember in that time if I said okay, fine, I take her back are not
so what do we say to this person?
sure, are certain
the same, so what of what is established and what is new?
Divorce is established. And the idea of the emergent issue the incidental issue is did he take her back? And so we say the principle is that the new issue doesn't exist. So it doesn't doesn't exist until we can establish it.
Okay, the next one.
I'll ask you law if it's an had if the UK rumble Oh courts, this is a very good one. It's very useful to know this one.
The principle is to place the event at the nearest time.
Okay, so in the previous examples, we said you're doubtful of the existence of the Hadith of the impurity.
Now, let's say you are searching of the heart, if you're certain of the impurity, you're uncertain of the time. So I'll give you an example. You made will do you pray to Russia. And then you went to sleep.
And then you woke up, and you prayed federal, and then you went to sleep.
And then you woke up, and you prayed for her.
Hopefully you don't sleep this time.
And after you prayed longer, you went into the washroom, and you looked on your body on your clothes, and you see the signs of Genova. Right.
So an impurity happened for sure. Are we uncertain about the impurity? We're searching? Because we've seen the signs of it. What are we not sure about? When did it happen?
And what prayers does he have to redo?
Okay, so now
he's certain it didn't happen when he was awake.
It must have happened when he was sleeping. Correct.
But now, when did it happen? Did it happen when he slept at night? Or did it happen when he slept in the morning?
That's the question.
In the morning, what's your evidence?
Why do we assume?
It would have been if he
still would have happened, right.
So if we said we're placing it at the earliest time,
then the earliest time would be right after he prayed at a shot, right.
And in which case he asked for redo feathered and the and if we said it happens at the nearest time, then we say all he has to redo is.
Okay, so what's the solution? Like we said, this car that says we place it at the nearest time? Why is this the case? And you can think about this from the previous caller, as we already talked about? What are we sure 100% He prayed? And he was in a state of the Hara.
Ayesha, what are we sure. 100% He prayed and he was in a state of Geneva.
What are we in check it out? fetcher. So we say the Athena is suitable. So the fetcher is fine. He just has to read we do that. Right.
Okay, I'll give you another example as well.
I'm Muslim, Mary is a Christian woman.
At the one we're not talking about in Canada, and all these issues, but you know, assume somebody is in the Muslim world. Even a long time ago, for example, he marries a Christian woman.
And let's say for example, he has two wives. He has a Muslim wife, he has a Christian wife, and he has children from the Muslim wife
as a Muslim children.
Now this woman accepts Islam, the Christian woman accepts the SNAM and the husband dies.
If she accepts Islam before he dies, does she inherit from him?
Yes. If she accepts Islam after he dies, does she inherit from him? No.
Okay, so now imagine he dies.
And the woman comes forward and she says, I accepted Islam before he died.
Now, what is her benefit? What does she benefit from? She says this, she inherits.
And the children come forward and they say no, she's lying. She only accepted Islam after he died. What do they benefit from this?
They have more money because she doesn't inherit obviously each of them have something to gain.
We tell both of them bring your proof right? They say she she didn't accept it. She says the only Muslims I know are these children and they're my opponents. They're against me.
So what is the principle regarding this woman
she didn't accept this now.
were certain diets
for doubtful about before she that
was not what you say.
Exactly. So the closest time the nearest time we can place it is after he's died.
as well, you can say it's established that she is not a Muslim. And the emergence issue is the claim that she is a Muslim, right. And so
this is the new event, but we place at the nearest of times, which means after the death of the husband. And so the hokum Shara if she does NOT inherit,
but of course, we go to the kids, and we tell them this is, you know, your father's wife, and you should be good to her. And she's accepted to snap now and give her something and, you know, we tried to tell them to be good, but from the perspective of what is the what is the ruling, the ruling is, she does not have any rights unless she can prove that she accepted to stand before His death.
Okay, the next one is also a Shia and Eva, the principle in all things is permissibility. And things are permissibility.
In this fight, I'm sure many of you've heard this one before.
When we say a Shia, the things
what does this actually mean? This means the scholars say the things that bring benefits, the things that bring benefits. So do we have evidence that this microphone is halal? Is there something in the Quran and Sunnah about microphones? No. But the principle is that it's permissible. And this is something that benefits, right.
So and this is important, because what if somebody comes, here's a new food,
newly discovered food, and we established that it's poisonous, it's cancerous, it's deeply harmful. And it's a new thing.
And it's not mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah. Do we say the principle of all things is permissibility. No, because what is meant by all things is all things that benefit if we can establish clearly this is not beneficial, and this is harmful, then it doesn't fall into this rule. So this statement, and also flesh out the VA exam you read will be half assed, it's intending a specific meaning a specific meaning is things that are beneficial. So all types of you know, electronic gadgets, and whatever the principle is that they are permissible.
And for animals, as for animals, the principle also is permissibility. Except that which the Shediac has made exception for. So for instance, the *ty acids you cannot eat an animal that
has fangs, you cannot eat an animal that has claws. You cannot eat a bird that has talents. And of course, the pigs and and, of course, the dead animals. So everything excluded from this. The principle is permissibility. So the Arabs didn't know what a draft is. drafts are in Africa, parts of Africa, usually in South Africa. area, the Arabs didn't know what it was. They came they came in they found it and they wrote in some of the books I felt it looks like a camel but it has a very long neck. Right? But the principle is it's permissible. It doesn't there's nothing about it that the city has excluded. So the principles permissibility.
Okay, now we come into a
the controversial issues.
A man walks into
a place and he finds a plate of meats.
If we use the previous party, though, we would say it's permissible to eat it.
Because there's no evidence of the lack of permissibility and also the finish and leave Alpha. However, many scholars including the Hamleys they have another party the another principle,
fill in Blarney will not only women did not assume well enough, so who are
the principal in possessions and in meats, and in the in variable wealth can in the soul is to Hareem? It's not permissible.
So there's a difference.
The difference between this and the animal? The animal is halal in principle,
meaning if it's not mentioned in the *tier, if it does not have claws or fangs, etc, it's in principle permissible. But you find the meat that is already slaughtered. And you do not know is it slaughtered correctly or is it not slaughtered correctly? We say the principle is to stop permissible.
Now, now, you understand by the way, without going into controversy, if for some reason, there is a scholar who does not take this far either
his conclusion is going to be different than a scholar who does take this fight. You understand?
Now another example that this comes into play.
it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a muslim woman for
Now I'll give you an example. A man tells his mother
You know, our next door neighbor, they have five daughters. I want you to marry one of these daughters. So he tells his mother go ask them for me to marry one of the daughters would have whichever one.
And the mother says, you know, when those when those daughters were young, I breastfed one of them.
And I don't remember which one of them I breastfed.
I don't remember was a faulty melon, Xena, but I don't know which one. But one of those girls, I breastfed them. And I don't know which one it is.
Can he say to his mother, okay, well, in principle, the Muslim woman has had, you know, in principle, all things are permissible. And the Athena is sort of a shack you have dealt, but which one you breastfed, so no problem.
But the mother is knowledgeable, she came to our class. So she says, look, what you said is true. All things are permissible, and
everything that you've said, except there is an exception.
And also full of doubt. It's a cream, that when it comes to
relationship, intimacy, the rule is impermissible. So she says, Your sister because the one she breastfed is his sister. That's why he can't marry. Your sister is hidden amongst Maxwell rods, a limited number of women. And I can't tell which one she is. Therefore, in principle, you cannot marry any of them.
And this is the correct position. He can't marry any of the girls. Now, what if
he told his mother, I want to marry a girl from Mississauga.
I want to marry a muslim girl from Mississauga. And the mother says, I breastfed once a baby girl from Mississauga. And I don't remember which one she is.
Can can she make all of the aluminum saga haram?
Because we said mass will rot in the first time that they are limited in number. Mississauga is not really limited to many 1000s. So in this case, it wouldn't apply.
But in the case of which someone that is not permissible for him to marry amongst a group that are limited in number, and he doesn't know which one of them he can't marry, then he can't marry any of them.
Also, in this principle, wealth, that is my assume.
So for example, let's say if there's a cell phone over here, and I don't know who belongs to, can I take it and say in principle,
and also Felicia, like, in principle, things are permissible. So I'm just going to take a cell phone, it's mine now. No, we say why? Because it is wealth that belongs to we might assume what is the man assume?
So my assume is every Muslim is Muslim, has a smell
like a sanctity essentially. And every non Muslim who is has a peace treaty with the Muslims, either a peace treaty, or he's even me, or whatever the case is, there's a peace between them and between the Muslims. The basically anyone who's not in a state of war against the Muslims is considered Muslim.
if we see wealth, whether it belongs to a Muslim or non Muslim, so long as that non Muslim is not in a state of war with Muslims, we can't just say, well, I can take it for myself. No, in principle, this is haram. Right?
Same thing, if somebody says, well, also Felicia Alaba the principal now things is permissibility. So I'm gonna go kill some people
who say no, because and neffs whenever the neffs of them as soon is lost if he had to him it's not permissible.
Whereas the prophets of Allah who said them said, in the UK and worldwide, where are the compound when it comes to income, whether indeed your you know, your blood and your wealth and your your honor is sacred, like the sacredness of the state?
Okay, somebody goes to a restaurant, and they hear widespread news that the chicken in the city or in this country is not slaughtered according to Islamic rules. These chickens are electrocuted.
Is the meat halal or haram? He doesn't know specifically, this restaurant is not sure. This plate of chicken he doesn't know. But he knows in this country or in the city. It is very widespread that the chickens are electrocuted.
So does he say
In principle this is Helen or does he say in principle this is haram.
In principle, he says this is haram
because this Clyde,
here's to him.
Now let's say another issue.
Brother Zane invites us all over his house for dinner.
And from his generosity Masha Allah, he went and he got two lamps, slaughter two lamps for us.
And let's assume for the sake of this argument, we are in a Muslim country when this happens.
We didn't see him slaughter the lamb. We don't know where he bought it from. We don't know any of that. We come to his house and the meat is ready, and it's on the plate. It's ready for you. What is the ruling here? Is the principle that it is haram or is the principle that it is halal. It is halal? And are we required to ask him? Where did you get this meat from? No, we're not required to ask him. In fact, it would be rude to ask. Why? Because even though in principles, meat is impermissible, the man is a Muslim. Let's say he lives in an area
where slaughtering the animals according to shootie is common. It's common that the animals are slaughtered according to the Sharia.
So in this case, the London is permissible, this is one of the areas you act upon one, the lung is permissible, even though we say in principle, it's not permissible. We take the lung over the US
this is one of the issues where one goes over the European or over the US that we have.
we change the variable of
that rather than?
So we say it depends what is widespread. And its interest because I'm thinking about this myself. And I was thinking, you know, if I went to, I don't know, think of a small city in Ontario or something like that, or small city in America. You go like Little Rock, Arkansas or something. I don't know, some place where there's a small city, there's barely any Muslims there.
Immediately we have to have the assumption of meetings about how that right. But if you're in Mississauga, and you're in the Muslims house, and halal meat is very common in Mississauga, every grocery Walmart has halal meat Costco has halal meat, then in this case, based on what the FDA have said, I think this is just my thought that in this case, we would act. According to this we would not ask another Muslim what is what did they get for me?
No one knows best.
So if I'm in a place or a city where it's very common, and well known that the chickens are slaughtered Islamically, then I don't ask about it.
But if I'm in a place where it's very common that they are slaughtered, understandably, then I can ask it's permissible in our scenario TAs.
Okay, the next point, now I belong with one Albanian Hopper, there is no consideration for assumptions that have been shown or proven to be wrong. Yes.
No, this all we mentioned, if you wanted to kill people,
we say no one's muscle, right? Just like the wealthy can't take it. Okay, their eyebrows with one Albanian half hour, there's no consideration for assumptions that has been shown to be wrong. So let's say for example, we're all sitting together.
And my cell phone, the alarm goes off on it on the cell phone. And we all get up and say Okay, it's time for Aisha to pray. We all get up and we pray. Then after the prayer, I look at my phone I say you know what, something's wrong with my phone. And the I then went to off 30 minutes before it should have and we pray that I show 30 minutes before the event for it.
Is our slider valid or not?
It's not valid. At the time we prayed.
We prayed we prayed based on you on one right?
Because we assumed that the event is correct. Right. Now our lung is proven to be wrong.
The oven has been proven to be wrong. So we say that I brought with one there is no consideration for the one that has been proven to be wrong. Okay.
And so that we have to read prayer.
Exactly. It was valid until we found out is wrong. So this is an example
this is a common example. So you go and you
you come to pray. And you're like I made will do I don't remember if I broke my window or not. Right. So we already talked about this one. The person says, I stick with mine you have to eat
And so he stands up and he prays. Then after the prayer, he's making a speech. And he's sitting in his thinking, and he says, oh my god, actually, I for sure went to the washroom. Now I remember very clearly for sure I went to the washroom after I made will do. So now, does he have to make up that prayer? Yes, because there is no check any more. Now there's your theme. Right? There's Yfp. And that has removed the previous European. So that's, that's the other principle as well. But the assumption that we are still on our will do has been proven to be incorrect. So now because it's proven I have to redo the prayer.
So in the hunger, the madhhab, and I believe in the chef or in the Maliki as well, in that case, the Imam has to redo his prayer. But the people pray behind them do not have to
the Hanafi is have an exception in this. And this is why I've seen before in 100 feet Masjid. The Imam put up a sign and said whoever prayed with me,
assaulted it shot. I'm listening this a day, I realized I didn't have my will do that day. So we do that prayer. Because the Hanafi say, everybody has to redo it. But the other my dad say only the amount of hassle. Once he remembers, oh, actually, I didn't have my will. He has to redo it. But everybody else's prayer is valid.
I'll give you an example. This is also a real example. A woman was sleeping during Ramadan, the night of Ramadan. And she wakes up and she checks her clock. And the clock says 4am. and fetch it at that time is 5am.
She gets up, she eats and she drinks etc.
And now she's eating. She hears the comment in the messages.
So how is this possible? She goes back and looks at her watch. And it's still 4am. So she woke up at 4am. So eating drinking, it's still 4am. Of course, like the the clock is broken, right? It's the clocks not moving. So she realizes now that she ate and drank after fetcher after the event of fetching. Okay. Is she sinful?
No. Because the first principle and also they'll call it Matt, can I then that can things remain as they are? She will come in the night, or she assumes is in the night? She can stick with that principle. That's the night and she even tried to check the time. Right? She's not sinful. Does she have to make up her fast? Yes, she has to make a professor. According to the vast majority of scholars, she has to make up for fast because there's no consideration for one that is proven to be incorrect. Right? So once she knew 100% that what she assumed to be true is false. She has to
redo that fast because the vast the fastest not valid. Now what if she woke up? She thought it's not fair at the time she ate and she drank? And then she prayed. She had no idea that she ate after fetching.
And she continued her whole day she has no idea about this. What is the state of her fast it's valid.
So as long as it's like okay, like I can get her part and then she realized it was
Yeah, once she knows that she ate after Fajr the fastest is void she has to redo it and but she's not sinful because she's not sinful
so there's definitely as you're as you're eating the then starts No, this is no problem. Even the prophesies that I'm told people with the food in their mouths, continue the food, eat the food, right? It's not meant to be like this exact moment. But if it's proven that any after fettered by like 10 minutes 20 minutes or so he didn't know at that point like this is
naturally Fisher played, but what's in your mouth? You can finish it.
Yeah, the scholars say what's in your mouth or right in your hand like this? You can you can finish that. But if you have a huge plate for 20 minutes now.
Okay, there are some exceptions to this.
I'll give you actually two examples.
Someone who gives the cat
toy Hashimi, someone from bento Hashim are they allowed to receive Zika they're not allowed to receive. So he gives the cat to someone from Benny Hashem. Then he finds out after this person is from Benny Asha.
He has to
he has to redo the car.
That the car was not valid. He has to repay it.
if somebody gives a car to someone he believes to be poor, he talks to the person, the person says, I'm poor, I can't pay anything, I can't pay my bills, I can't pay my rent, we assume this person is poor. So we give them his account. Then afterwards, somebody else comes to you and says, you know, that person that Brother, you gave him the cat money, he's lying to you. He's rich. He's got he's got a nice car and he's living a nice life. He's just lying, He lies to people. That's how he makes money. This person we tell him your zip code is valid. And you do not need to make it up. Why the scholars say because it is difficult to ascertain someone's poverty, but it is not too difficult to
ascertain whether someone is passionate or not.
So, they said if he gave it to a Hashimi, he should have known and he has to repay it, but if he gave it to somebody who lied to him, conmen who lied and pretended to be poor, but was actually not then in this case, they let it go.
Last time was best Okay.
Let's do some quiz.
So, one person claims that another person hit their car or broke his hand and he does not have proof
does the accused need to do anything more than swearing an oath that he is innocent?
Does he have to pay or just yet have to just swear the oath just where the oath is correct.
Okay, based on what we studied, which of these principles does this come under?
So is it that the principle of all things is permissibility? Or the principle of the presumption of innocence or the principle to place the event at its nearest time
as the borrower so that he is innocent, this is the principle we're acting upon.
Okay, a person has dealt whether he swore an oath to fast or not, does he have to fast yes or no?
no, he does not have to fast because the the oath has not been established.
Okay, what is the principle that we use here? Is it that all things are permissible or the presumption of innocence or to place the event at the nearest time
presumption of innocence and if we had put
a moral lawgiver and Adam that the principle and the emergent issues is its non existence that could also apply to this as well.
Okay, a capital investor claims that his partner has unclaimed profits and he has no proof and the partner rejects this claim whose claim should be taken the investor or the partner or neither of them
claim with a partner
because the other one is making the claim the other one has to prove it and the principle we use here is
That's That's correct.
Okay, he sees an impurity on his clothing and he does not know whether it occurred before after his prayer does he have to redo his prayer?
Yes, because the purity has been established, seizing
the impurities established does he have to redo the prayer
so he doesn't have to do it.
And because we placed the events at its nearest time so why why are we placing him before the
before the prayer? We don't know if it came dropped on him before the prayer jumped on him after the prayer. So but it's near assignments, there's times when he discovers it
does that make sense?
Man, is he certain
He isn't certain happened before the prayer.
i The person prayed. And he just finishes his prayer. He looks over and he sees it.
He's gonna be searching. It happened before the prayer. Because he knows during the prayer, nothing fell on him. He's gonna look around, nothing fell on me, right? So he's gonna be searching. But if he's not certain, and he thinks it could have happened while I prayed or it could have happened after I prayed, then he's not searching it right? We placed it to its nearest time
okay, he ain't thinking that the sun has set then it becomes clear to him that the son did not set does he have to make up the fast? And what is the
the last one, right?
if he didn't discover that he was wrong, it would have been fine but once he discovered he's for sure wrong and that he eights before then he has to redo the front.
Okay, he divorced one of his wives three times and forgets which one he divorced was somebody who has multiple wives. And he says I divorced one of them. I don't know which one I divorced. And it's the third time and if it's the first time we would let him go. It's okay. Because he could you could take them back but he divorced her three times. He's not sure which one he divorced.
Is he allowed to be intimate with them? No.
Exactly. So when it comes to
intimacy and relationship he cannot the principles to me the principle is haram. So we say all of your wives are haram all of the wives that you think might be divorced or haram until you are certain which one you are divorced, so you can go to any of them
that's the last question
I have to think of examples that we can we can use
Inshallah, the second bucket and then next week, we'll come back and show Allah and go with the next principle being the lab. Just like I mentioned the beginning we do have a fundraising dinner on Friday, I hope you guys can attend. And on Saturday inshallah Imam Tom is going to be here he's going to give like a workshop on capitalism and communism and the stem and I highly recommend inshallah if you guys have time to attend that I think from six o'clock to eight o'clock.
So so come for that be in the lab as well. He's very knowledgeable brother Shawn law, and I think there's a lot to benefit from him. Then. So last Sunday, we have our classes while feeding them.
I will try and chocolate for them.
We were going to do so Friday is going to be there TCC the Saturday event was supposed to be there. I might move it here.
We'll see in trauma.
Lockers have long lenses to fill up on the tunic