Ibrahim Hindy – Qawa’id fiqhiyya #5 – No harm or reciprocating harm
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss various legal topics related to the concept of "any harm that doesn't occur" and the maxim, including the Sharia maxim and the deeleration of harm from actions. They also touch on the importance of possession and the use of it for various purposes, including rebuilding the Kaaba and removing evil from situations. The speakers stress the need to show one's stance and show one's stance when it is impossible to remove harm from each other. They also mention the benefits of rebuilding the Kaaba and removing branches from buildings, including the ruling of appointing judges to adjudicate between parties.
AI: Summary ©
Bismillah Alhamdulillah wa salatu salam ala Rasulillah who is early he will be here woman Wila
have a Sharpie so that erase silly Emery remote but that's me Sani Africa hopefully
I'll proceed to Allah alone and then we seek aid and assistance and Tim we turn both in repentance and for forgiveness.
Inshallah we will continue with our course on Alcoa. I have here the legal Maxim's in a SNAM.
Last week we talked about the maxim which was
a short passage of a test so that hardship calls for ease, and inshallah today we're going to be speaking about another one of the major call outs of the major legal Maxim's, which is law bar or whatever the law that there is no initiation of harm, nor any reciprocating of harm.
And this is related in a lot of ways to what we talked about last week. And Michelle Cattell Djibouti, so you'll see there's overlap. And this happens often as you study more and more collaborate, you find overlap from one area to another, to the point that sometimes the sub Maxim under one clock, the other scholars will put it under a different guy, that and so on and so forth.
Okay, so this party that this legal Maxim,
comes from a hadith of our prophets of Allah, who already you send them have the same exact wording, libre wherever you are, there is no data and there is no there are
now other scholars, who will say the major Maxim here, especially some of the modern books, the later books have collided, they will not use this one, they will use this as a sub Maxim. And they will say the major maxim is about our use and which means harm borrower is useful is to be removed. So they say that is the major one.
But we stick with this one
letter, what are the roar? Why? Couple of a few reasons. One, the classical books use this one.
Two, it is the phrasing of our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the phrasing of the Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam is, is more or less more blessed than better and more beautiful. But also it is more comprehensive. When you say about our use and harms to be removed, it means that when there is harm, we have to remove it.
But when you say Larabar, or while there are there is no harm, there is no initiation of harm or reciprocating of harm.
We are saying that
the harm before it happens should be repelled. As well as the harm after it happens, needs to be removed. So it's more comprehensive, right? We're talking about the harm before it takes place. And the harm if shouldn't take place. Whereas if you say about it was Al harm is to be removed, it just means that when no harm takes place, we have to remove it, we have to get rid of it.
Now this maximum lab or whenever there are clearly to understand it, there's two words we have to understand, right? Because I think all of us know what law means. So the question is, what is data and what is the raw? Right, what is data and what is the raw and the scholars have different opinions and in fact, there are many different opinions.
One opinion is that Bharara is that which does not bring a benefits, I realized right now, I didn't change the put the meaning here, this meaning is incorrect. This is the meaning from the previous card, but I will update it in sha Allah and and send it to everyone.
So there are is that which has a benefit that which has a benefit and the Roar is that which does not have the benefits. So if someone harms by taking away something from you, that used to benefit you, they will say that is thorough.
And if they harm you by bringing you something that only causes harm does not bring any benefit, then they will say that is little,
if that makes sense. So for instance, you have a river flowing through your property, you benefit from this river, someone cuts off the river, right? No more water is coming to you. They would say that is better, because there was something that was bringing you benefits, and now it's been cut off. The rod is something that never give you benefit but now it's causing you harm. I can't think of an example of top of my head but any type of example something that didn't exist, to bring you benefit and all of a sudden it is brought to you
Another another definition of borrower in the roar.
By the way, if not the borrower had that previous definition that we mentioned. Another definition is the initiation of harm is
the origination of harm is the rod.
And the rod is that which comes after the reciprocating harm. This is why often you see it translated as there is no initiation of harm, and there is no reciprocating harm. So, out of the blue, Muhammad comes and punches me, I didn't do anything to him. This is Bara. He originally began the harm he initiated the harm, I get upset and I punch him back. Now this is the route I am reciprocating the harm I'm giving harm in response, and this was the definition of ignorance Josie, and others from the scholars.
This Maxim in reality, it means all of these meanings, all of these meanings are valid. And so it is the initiation of harm and the reciprocating of harm, it is the prevention of the benefits and the harm that does not provide any benefits. And even more of this,
this maximum as well comes as a hover, and as in chat, which means that it intends a prohibition.
So sometimes we read the I remember when I was younger, this hadith, you read, and now he's headed for the Hadith. With this one, there's no harm and there's no returning house. I have no idea what this means. So the reason it's difficult to translate is because it has different meanings. Meaning you can read it in one sense that this is a prohibition meaning it's as if the Prophet is saying, Oh servants of Allah do not harm each other, harming each other as haram. So this is one way to read this hadith. Delgado, whether the rock don't harm each other. Another way to read this hadith is that the Sharia does not bring harm. So he's saying this Shetty or this religion does not bring
harm, there is no doubt, right? There's no harm coming with the idea of Allah subhanaw taala. And so then this means two things.
Number one,
it is about removing the harm
and repelling it before it can occur.
Right, removing the harm if it occurs, because the shitty AI removes the harm and repels it even before it occurs, and prohibiting harm and damage to others.
Also, we should say,
although this is
a deeper point, but we'll get into it a little bit. What is not included in this maxim. What is not included in this is a harm that occurs behalf by rights. What do we mean by this? For example, the punishment of someone who commits cut, who accuses another of adultery or fornication, the last the city comes with the punishment of lashing
someone we say this is harm, this is harmful. We say this is not included in this in the meaning of this hadith because the Sharia has specifically mentions it
likewise Zania towards any federally Dooku luminometer agenda, the
fornicating men and women lash each of them 100 times
one at home can be in Iraq veteran feeding Allah Allah says do not let any pity overtake you.
Right. So the Sharia itself the Quran itself is saying when you see two people being lashed, you're gonna feel bad for them. So there is a harm. But we say that this occurs due to justice you due to a right right other the rights of Allah azza wa jal have been overstepped, or the rights of another servant has been overstepped, and the Shediac came with this, so it doesn't overcome it. Now, this is one way to say it, and it's true.
Another thing to mention,
is even in some of the scholars will say even in these cases, the reality is that this is a lesser harm.
The harm of lashing the fornicator is a lesser harm. We'll mention some of the sub Maxim's in the future, because they will say if you if there wasn't a consequence like this in society for fornication, then more people will do it. Then more children will be born not knowing their fathers, more families will break down society will be worse. Right? So this punishment even though when you see it, you feel pity. People are being washed. But the idea is that the Sharia is not bringing harm even in this because it's preventing a worse harm. And we'll talk about that in a little bit.
So first
This far either this maxim means that harm without being at stake without rights being at stake, that surely I came to remove it. If there's harm and the rights of others or not. Without the rights being involved, then the idea came to remove it. And the car that means two things, the Chevy does not bring harm.
And when harm comes from the shed, yeah seeks to remove it if it occurs, and seeks to repel it before it can occur.
And number two, it prohibits harm from us harming each other, it's haram for us to harm each other.
And the de Lille for this fire that was mentioned came directly from the hadith of our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Laura, what are the raw?
Okay,
there are different allied sub Maxim's related to this maximum.
I think this is going to be one of the shortest classes, not sure. We're going through it pretty fast.
It's pretty straightforward. So a lot of us are harmless to be removed. Like we said, Some people consider this one to be the major maximum, the main one.
But this is, like we said, it's more specific. It's less comprehensive than the Hadith.
So an example here
confiscating the wealth of a limitless, the one who's bankrupt. So there are three types of people. There is a morsel, and more so it is the one who has nothing.
Right? It doesn't have any wealth. And he has
debts as well. And he has no Well, I love lists is the one who has money. But his debts are more than his money. His debts are more than the wealth that he has.
And then the money is the one whose wealth is more than his debts.
Okay. The mirthless. The one who has money by his debts are more than his wealth. Do we leave him to do whatever he wants with his money? Or do we put a hold on his money? Do we confiscate hold the money, we confiscate we hold the money. Why? Because if we left him to do whatever he wants with his money, there is a harm to all the people he owes money, all the people that he's in debt to, right, he can't pay them all back, he doesn't have enough money to pay them back. So the judge will give in proportion to their debt, we'll split up the money that remains. But we don't leave him and say Do whatever you want with your money, because that would cause harm to those who are owed money.
Also, we can include here as well, we've spoken about this, the past CRL clarity, the lease CRL element. So the
CRL aim is like the, the flaw option. So if you purchase a phone from me, you go home and you're like this phone is broken, it doesn't work.
You have the rights to return it, you have the right to ask me to compensate you for that for the flaw that's in it. So this idea came with this, why? To remove the harm, right? Likewise, fraud, right? So somebody sells you something and it turns out to be not what you ordered. Right? You gave me something other than what you ordered give you something different. Again, you can return it. unfair practices, I tell you the phone, when I tell you this phone is worth $1,000 I sell it to you you go you take the phone, you go to the mall, the same phone is available for $100. Right. So now you can come back and say this is unfair practice your fraud, this type of fraud as well. And you
can get your money back. So the Shediac came with all of this. And all of this is about removing harm after it occurs.
Okay, another car and then the next one are brought on wood found because they're in can harm is to be repelled by the greatest extent possible.
So sometimes we can remove the harm completely, there's a harm that happens we can get rid of all of it. And sometimes we can't get rid of all of it.
So somebody enters your house, and he wants to kill you and he wants to steal from you.
And to remove this harm, you can give him the money
down here take the money and leave in hopes that like he's not going to hurt you he's gonna leave. Is this permissible? We say yes. Because you are removing the harm as much as you can.
Another example is so we go back to the person who's bankrupt and they come in they seize all of his assets, all of his money and critical luck. It says all of his money and his assets and possessions. Your possession is with him. Something that belongs to you is with him. Can you take it back? The Prophet said the one whose possession is found
He was the one who he's in debt to has the greatest right to it, meaning that possession
because the rest of his assets are going to be taken and going to be distributed to his debtors, right. But what if your car is with him? Right? The car you gave him that he never paid you back for the car is there? Do they take the car and spread it to all the different debtors? No, you have more of a right to it's your car. The profit says the one who owned it and more have the right for it. So it's given back to you.
And this is the harm being expelled to the greatest extent possible.
Likewise, clear and Mejlis and criada. Chuffed
so we're in a sitting or you came to let's say, you walk into a store, and we're sitting together, and you purchase something, you say, I'll buy this phone, whatever, for $100. And then in the same sitting, we already made the transaction, give me the $100 He gave you the phone, you're looking at the phone. And you know, I changed my mind on all my money back. So this is a clouded image, this in the same sitting, you have the option to return, right? There's no, there's no flaw with it, there's nothing that you know that's wrong with you, you just want to give it back. Because we're in the same setting, you're allowed to do so. Right.
Because why? Because the shut er is helping repel a harm that you fear may exist, you fear there might be a harm with this product. So that should yeah gives you this ability to return it right away. Because you fear a harm lady might exist. Likewise, the Sharia on permits Korea a shirt, which is that you say I want to buy the phone, on the condition
that I take the phone for three days, or I take the phone for a week, I try it out. I asked other people, I get opinions on it. And then we'll have a final deal. So you can you can offer this condition I can accept. So this should be our permits this why, again, to remove the harm to the greatest extent that we possibly can.
I'm thinking of another example. But I don't know if it would be more in terms of authority use and
then this one, but the example the scholars mentioned.
So one of them. For instance, if a if a husband is harming his wife, like he's hitting her, he's harming her. He's being really nasty to her. And she wants to get out of the marriage. So she offers him money to end the marriage. Now when a wife offers money to the husband to end the marriage, what is this called? Who knows?
Sorry.
So this is Hola, right? It's called out so she is making an offer to end the marriage. The scholars will say if he's treating her so badly, he's beating her he's hitting her etc. Even if she paid him money. In reality, this is pulled off.
Because he's really, he's harming her in order to end the marriage really? Right. So they would call this a HELOC. Even if she paid him, the scholars would still call it pulled out. So this is a type of harm
that they mentioned.
Yep.
Yeah, yeah. So basically, he's sinful in it. And even if she gave the money, the idea is that it's not a whole lot of work aware. He's really negotiating on on even terms, because he's making her life terrible, right? So they're saying in reality, this is really a follow up, even though she paid him and to end the marriage or whatever.
If they could, but they're talking in theory. They're not like saying this.
The other issue that arises that I'm thinking about
is the issue of
if somebody gives,
so a Husband Husband is on his deathbed.
And he doesn't want his wife to inherit from him. So he divorces her on his deathbed.
This happened.
Okay, so what happens here? Those say,
this is, first of all, so this goes back to the first thing we talked about moving them across the hall, right? Because he's on his deathbed. They say he's divorcing her just not an error. So they don't accept that. But also comes in here because this is a type of donor. This is a harm that he's committing, right that he's divorcing on the deathbed just she doesn't inherit, so they make her inherits. They make her inherit even after he dies. This happened in the time of America, blah, blah, blah, one, right. And so he ordered that the wife still receives the inheritance, and the scholars disagreed. Is it a divorce or not? So some said she is
divorced and she still inherits. And some said she's not divorced. She inherits. And she's not divorced, the divorce didn't count. Because he's trying to do it just to learn.
So yeah, the intention plays a part in this, because he's on the deathbed. The accusation that he's doing this to harm her
is given more weight, because of the context of him being on the deathbed. So even if he says, no, no, it's just my intention to divorce her, they will give the accusation more weights, because of the context that he's on, on his deathbed.
But these are types of harms the Shediac comes to remove, right? So this goes under a thorough us that harm has to be removed.
Okay, a better law user can be made for the harm is not to be removed by an equivalent harm. So if a harm occurs, either it is removed by a greater harm, logically, logically, if there's a harm, it's going to be removed, either by worse harm, or a lesser harm or an equal harm. Right? Those are three options.
Is it permissible to remove a harm with a greater harm? No.
Is it permissible to remove or harm with an equal harm? We say no as well, right?
There's no point to that. Can it be removed by a lesser harm? Yes. And this comes into play in the next slide. But this is also my full Maharlika. We talked about this and also right, the inverse understanding when we say a harm is not to be removed by its equal by the equal form. What does that mean? In the contrary, meaning is that it is to be removed by the lesser, right.
Okay, so an example we kind of talked about this last week as well.
If I'm starving, and I might die.
And you know, you and I were all of us together, we're out in the middle of the desert, we're stranded. And all of you have food.
And I don't have food, and all of us are going to die, all of us are fearing death. Can I steal your food and eat it and say that I have to save my life?
Because then you're going to die. So my life is not worth more than yours, right? The life of one Muslim is not worth more than another. So it's not permissible because you're removing one harm, the harm of me dying with an equal harm the harm of you dying, right? So it's not permissible. Likewise, someone is forced to kill another Muslim, someone is told if you don't kill another Muslim, I'm going to kill you can not permissible right.
The next card reader
is a borrower assured us that the borrower a half, the greater harm is to be removed by the lesser harm. This is what we said, you know, the reverse understanding of the previous caller either
so an example
and then has to pray Salah and he does not have clothes, for whatever reason, or his he only has one shirt and the shirt is cotton, or his pants or, you know, really short shorts or something like that. Okay. Does he? Does he pray standing? Or does he pray sitting?
When we pray, what are we supposed to pray? Standing right?
If he
stands more, have his hours exposed.
And if he sits less of the hours exposed, but if he sits he's not he's losing his pm and his prayer. So which is greater, losing the PM, the harm of losing the PM, or the harm of showing his outer during prayer, more of his hours during prayer. So the hours the greater harm. So he prays while sitting to show as less of the hour as he possibly can.
Likewise, we mentioned last week, you know, the example of somebody's choking and all he could find is like alcohol beer in front of him. Can he drink it to get it out? Yes, because the harm of dying. Choking is greater than the harm of being drunk. Right? The harm of being drunk is less. So we say yes, you can drink the beer to you know get the bone that's in your throat to get this lodge. This is permissible.
So this is the greater harm is removed by the lesser harm.
The next CLI that that's our that's my FC the tan ruari
Humanity caveats. If two evil things are in conflict,
we ward off the greater of them by committing the lesser of them.
So this is
is almost exactly like what we just mentioned, the example of the man in the hour is our showing while praying. So he prays sitting to not
show his IRA.
He's doing an evil action, quote unquote, a wrong action. Right? He's praying with his our expose.
He's praying sitting in order to do less of the greater harm, which is showing us our, during his prayer.
Likewise, being quiet over an evil. So this is something you know, people talk about a lot.
There's an evil in society. So you're quiet about it. Why? Because you say if I speak about it, there will be it will cause a greater evil. Right? So maybe if I speak about it, the government will do something even worse. And so I'll remain silent about this. So here are two evils are are, are going to occur.
The Evil of you being quiet over the evil that exists is one evil, but then the evil that you expect to occur is the other evil. So then he says, two evils aren't conflict, right? And we give precedents to the lessor.
Another example, somebody is having trouble fasting.
Very difficult for him to fast. Maybe this is an elderly man or an elderly woman, they're old. And if he fasts,
he does not have enough energy to pray standing.
And if he breaks his fast, he will inshallah have enough energy to pray while he's standing. So should he?
Should he fast and pray sitting? Or should he break his fast and free standing?
What do you say?
Okay, wait, which one who says, fast and presetting?
Okay, who says,
break the fast and presenting? So that everyone else is right. So he does fast? Why? Because we say the deficiency and his prayer is the lesser harm than not doing that Rebadow we're talking about fasting in Ramadan. So this is an important point here. It's not voluntary, fast, right? It's voluntary fast, and we say absolutely. Don't fast and pray standing. But because it's a fast in Ramadan, we say the evil of him not fasting in Ramadan is greater than causing a deficiency in his prayer. Right? This prayer is still valid. There's a deficiency, but at least he's still fasting as his Ramadan. Yeah.
So this is a different question. I was talking about, like the medical the medical opinion.
Yeah.
We're not doctors.
Okay, so that's an example of course of taking the two evils are in conflict, we ward them off by committing the lesser of the evils. The last one is Elena facet, I will learn in Jasmine Masada. Repelling an evil is a priority over gaining a benefits.
So this is an important maximum. Maybe you guys have heard of this before? Maybe you're having discussions and people bring this up all the time. Okay, there's two important conditions for this. The first condition
is to have their agenda, we have an inability to reconcile. So you're able to bring a benefit. But if you bring this benefit, there's going to be an evil with it. Okay? Or if we abandon the benefit, we're also abandoning the evil with it. Right. So which one takes precedence? repelling the evil takes precedence over gaining a benefit?
So we get rid of the evil, even if it means we're getting rid of the benefit.
However, we are doing this when we're unable to reconcile them. What do we mean by that? It means that if it's possible to bring the benefit without the evil,
then we do that we bring the benefit, we don't do the evil. So this is only speaking about when it's impossible to remove them from each other. Right? It's impossible to take them apart. So the evil and the benefit are tied together, we bring the benefit evils coming with it, right? If it's possible to separate them, then bring the benefit get rid of the evil and we don't even have to talk about this right.
So that's the first point. We have an inability to separate these the benefits of evil from one another. Number two, and this is important that the evil is equal
For greater than the benefits, the evil is equal or greater than the benefit. And this is an important point that gets forgotten. A lot of people will mention this point, repelling the evil is more important than gaining the benefit, which is true, but provided that the evil is equal to the benefits are greater than the benefit. So, if the evil is small, and the benefit is great, which one has a priority?
The benefit takes a priority, right? Because the benefit is significant in the harm in the evil, the small. But if they are equal, then we say getting rid of the harm the evil is more important than gaining the benefit.
Sometimes,
yes.
So that that's part of all of this. Right. And and then you get into deeper discussions in this about any what is a real harm? What is the WAM? Like what is a
the possibility of it happening is low versus, you know,
something that we say, you know how limited one, we expect this most likely is going to happen? That's different. Right?
But you're right, yeah. If somebody is saying, oh, there's a harm that could happen, potentially, but it's very unlikely to happen, then. But there's a benefit that definitely is going to happen, then, you know, we wouldn't
want to do that.
Yeah, a lot of issues. This, this comes up all the time, because every time there's a new issue, we're like, what's the benefit? What's the harm? And then everybody has a conversation argument about it. And we were teaching this, when we come to apply it in reality, things are not so simple, right? Because you and I might think this benefit is huge. And this harm is small. And then somebody else says no, the harm is huge. And the benefit is small. So everybody sometimes sees it differently.
But still, you know, we look to it as the free assets, yes.
Environments for an exception to like situations where I would not accept harm in any way.
What do you mean, like a technical example?
Where we've been having doctrines, we get people saying stuff, like something where it has to be
like,
this isn't the best example. But like, for example, like,
if you're dealing with money, you can say, Okay, well, the money you're making interest is less than the money they're making from the investment. So obviously, that would be
there
exactly.
Is like that would have to be a situation which is impossible to invest in anything except that it exists, right?
Because now you're talking about something that we can separate them, you can find the benefits and investments somewhere else without the harm.
Okay, so examples of this rule. So we can say isn't cursing the gods of the kuffar? Doesn't this have benefits?
We curse the idols that they worship, there is benefit in it. Right part of the benefit, you mock them, you make fun of them. Some maybe some, maybe a lot of people will be offended. But then one person will be like, You know what the right like these gods that are worshipping, why are we worshipping them? Right? So that could be benefit from it. However, if we know that if we curse their gods, they are going to curse Allah subhanaw taala. And our reverence for Allah is greater.
The Evil of them cursing Allah is greater than the benefit of us cursing their gods, right? That's where Allah azza wa jal says, when as a symbol of the need or when a man doing Allah, right, don't curse, those that they are worshiping other than Allah for Allah who are going to be radiated, otherwise they will curse Allah
in retaliation without knowledge.
Another example
I'm sure you all know, the caliber at the time of Prophet Ibrahim was built with you know, hedges married as part of the Kappa. So it's not a cube. It's a cube with the semicircle, right? Yeah.
Of course when Christ came to rebuild it, they didn't have enough Halal money to build it on the original foundation. So they built it as a square. And they put stones down for the semicircle area. Okay. When our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam conquered Mecca. He said to our Isha Lola and Nicole Nick Hadith What if we're not that your people are new to Islam
and they will be overcome by
Jaha Allah they will be overcome by ignorance. I would have destroyed the Kaaba and rebuilt it. The way Prophet Ibrahim built it. Right, he says, but I am afraid that they will say that
that the capital was destroyed, right and changed. So he didn't want to hurt the way they saw the Kaaba.
And so in a minute, we said that the, as the prophet explained, pulling down the Kaaba, and rebuilding it, as it was on the foundations of Prophet Ibrahim is a benefit. There's a benefit of rebuilding the Kaaba on the original foundations. But it's in conflict with a greater harm. Right. The greater harm is the fitna that people were going to go through
who had recently become Muslim, and they were ignorant. They would have gone through a fitna, right. So this is because they believed in the virtue of the Kaaba, the way that it was. So the Prophet left it, so that he doesn't cause a fitna for them.
Of course, we know in history, then it got destroyed and rebuilt on the
Delta, on the original, and then it hegemony, Yusef destroyed it. And then they rebuilt it the way it was at the time of the Prophet and went back and forth until the mathematics said, leave it. Because they came and said, Should we build it the way of Prophet Ibrahim is a leave it the way it is. Otherwise, every king comes and wants to put their own mark on it, and destroys it. And so he's just leave it. So since the time of Malik till now nobody's touched it. It's the way that it is. And this is the way it was at the time of the Prophet sallallahu at your center.
But here we see clearly there's a benefit mentioned. And there's a harm and they're in conflict and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi salam gives precedence to repelling the evil repelling the evil rather than gaining the benefit. Yep.
Is equal to or greater than the benefit? Yeah.
Remove the evil, even if it means we don't get in the benefit.
obligation.
Yeah, you chose not to do so.
Did you pray? Yeah.
He's passed
to the benefits for me.
It's possible.
I haven't heard someone use that example before, but it's possible.
Another example that's mentioned here is the emphasis on mod manga and instant shock while fasting.
So mod manga to gargle the water and our mouse is too sharp to get the water in our nostrils when we're making little right. So the Prophet said that if for instance shall be excessive, use a lot of water when you're doing a stun shot when you're cleaning your nose, and cleaning your mouth, Maga. belif, do more of it in the Intercon assignment, except when you are fasting. So when we're fasting, we still wash our mouth and we still wash our nose. But we use less water.
Right? In general, it's Mr. habit to use a lot of water
that when we're fasting, we use less water. We're not emphatic, we're not doing a lot. Why? Because of the fear of the harm that some of the water goes down our throat. Right so we use less. So here there's a benefit to using more water. This is why when we're not fasting, we use more water. But because of the evil the possible evil, the harm of the water going down our throat while we're fasting the Prophet says don't do this if you're fasting, right use less water, do like more superficial clean of your nose and your mouth.
Alright, so that's an example again, where we are repelling the evil even if it means forgoing a benefit.
Okay, let's do some questions and answers. So, here we have
Michelle, who are you the legislation in our city I have clouded a bit effect option you bought something and he found out it has a defect you want to return it or the fraud option you bought the wrong thing or they gave you the wrong thing or exploitation they charge you way more than actually costs. These options in our city I have been made and we justify or we understand that based on which are the authority to sell. Abroad youth fabric can the harm is to be removed or harm is to be repelled to the greatest extent possible or harm is not to be removed.
removed except by an equivalent harm,
etc. Which one do you guys say
about our use and harm is to be removed? Yeah.
Okay, if the branches of a tree, hang over the property of the neighbor, and the neighbor tells you to remove these branches isn't necessary to remove it.
And what is the idea that we are using here?
Maybe
and then can be extended possible
harm is to be removed. Is there a harm in removing those those branches? I don't
know, what's the benefit
of your trees growing in
tree branches?
Maybe I mean if we see it as a benefit the I put in harm's way
but maybe
I saw more of just like there's no real benefit to the neighbor
to the person who owns the tree that the branches are on that side.
Okay.
What is the ruling of appointing judges to adjudicate between conflicting parties?
Bernie Sanders correct. So removing harm
Okay, is it permissible for the distressed person to eat the food of another distressed person both of us are starving. Can I eat your food?
Now what's the what's the ruling?
Let me use an
alias al Demetri the harm is not to be removed by an equivalent harm and equal harm.
Okay.
excessiveness in the amount that is paid the Mahara the money paid in marriage has a benefit to the woman who is getting married to her family. But also there is a Nuff said there's an evil there's a negative to society. If you know it's too expensive to get married, fewer men are gonna get married. People might try to steal in order to pay their mom you know, people aren't gonna get married and maybe they're gonna commit Zina things like that okay. So is it good to demand excessive money to attain this benefit?
And what is the
caller ID that is used here
the last one
correct.
facet I would have been genuine Masada Okay, is it permissible for the one who was forced to kill another Muslim without any right to do so in order to protect his life
Laura Leigh is the head of the myth the harm is not to be removed by the equivalent harm
Kamen says it's difficult for me to both fast and pray standing so if I break my fast in Ramadan I can pray standing and if I fast i pre setting should he fast and pre setting and what is the legal maximum that is used here?
Yes
Yep, so two evils are in conflict we commit the lesser of the two of them
okay, a man is threatened to be killed if he doesn't pay a small amount of money should he pay this amount and what is the maximum
so the greater harm is removed by the lesser harm
emphasizing or being excessive in the Muslim world our instant shop is this Mr. hub for the fasting person and what is the
glider for this one.
So the last one that I had in the facet I would have injected in Masada repelling evil as a priority over gaining benefits. Right so the benefit of using a lot of water first and chopping my mother but the harm of breaking our fast so we repelled the evil.
Okay, we are obliged to leave blood of the murderer on his body and he's buried with his blood. What is
If the blood is mixed within the Jessa within purity, should we wash it, even though it means we're removing the blood as well? And what is the legal Maxim in relation here?
The greater arms to remove by the lesser harm.
Repelling an evil. Well, it could be both
it could be both to be honest.
But it is
repelling an evil to
live,
like there's a blessing in their blood until we
die. Very. That's the benefit. So we're moving in order to remove the impurity than a Jessa.
harm is to be repelled to the greatest extent possible.
It's possible. Yeah.
That's the last one. So,
sha Allah, next week will be the last class. We'll have to figure out the exam because I'm traveling the next two weekends and then Ramadan is right after. So I don't know if you guys want to do a test.
But also, I don't know if you want to wait too long.
Between the classes and the test.
I don't think it'd be too difficult. I think this is an easier course than previous ones.
jolla maybe number one we can be in the next class is the last one and the Adam Hakima customs are determinative. And
I haven't prepared it yet but I think that one might be a little bit longer than today.
So inshallah we'll we'll talk about that next week. We
have a long definition to alert you'd have entered a stock photo on a table you like some article