ALL our Projects are FREE and with no advertisements.

We serve millions of downloads a month... Now! Imagine earning on-going rewards of every lecture and quran audio and so on.

As well as helping us cover our running costs and future projects!

mufti menk image

"I really think this is one of the greatest causes one could support"

    Become a Patron
    Donate via PayPal

More Information and Options

Usul al-Fiqh #06

share this pageShare Page
Ibrahim Hindy

Channel: Ibrahim Hindy

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.

00:00:00--> 00:00:09

What does that mean? That means the understanding of the setup ie their each man their consensus,

00:00:10--> 00:00:25

because the opinion of one of the setup is not a source of law if others disagree with him, others from the setup disagree with each other to have this habit disagree. Their statement is not a source of law. But if all of us have agreed, then as a source of law, right?

00:00:26--> 00:00:30

Or we said, following the self means following their methods of understanding.

00:00:32--> 00:00:36

So generic is very important. Some people avoid your mouth.

00:00:37--> 00:01:09

When they want to come up with a fatwa, they avoided Janell and they say, You know what, often people will say there's a chimera and this issue, then we research it, and in fact, there is no intermap people are scholars different in it. So yes, this is true. Sometimes people will claim there's a drought and then you do more research to find out there is knowledge now. However, sometimes people will say a hadith is Sofia, then you do more research and you find out what's not so here. Does that mean the Sunnah is not important? Of course. Right? So Juma is important, even if sometimes people say there is a Jew, Marilyn, there isn't in fact,

00:01:10--> 00:01:25

how do we know it? Jamal, of course, when it's related by the scholars, like even among Vinod was a book on each marital Padana as a book on each mountain, or the early scholars of the midheaven related demand. For us, this is the way that we know that there is a demand, but Gemma has conditions.

00:01:26--> 00:01:33

So let me give you an example. First, let's talk about the issue of river. What is the ruling of the issue of river?

00:01:35--> 00:01:36

It's haram.

00:01:37--> 00:01:39

Who said this? Who said that It's haram?

00:01:42--> 00:01:45

Now we'll say the scholars of the OMA okay.

00:01:46--> 00:01:51

What is it that they're relying upon? What is the Scripture they're relying upon? The Quran? Right? The verse of the Quran?

00:01:53--> 00:02:02

What is the way of transmitting this ruling? Was it that some of them said it was haram? And the rest were silent? Or did all of them say it was on?

00:02:03--> 00:02:05

All of them said it was caught on?

00:02:07--> 00:02:45

So now we've covered basically all the pillars of HTML, right? And just giving you that as an example, think about. So the first pillar is an image, everyone the group, who are the people making this consensus, were the people conceding or making this consensus. The first condition of the group of people making a jump out is that they are people of interest, he heads, people of HD heads. So that means it's not you and me. Right. And sometimes this is important. And sometimes people will say, you know, there's a huge amount of the scholars and there's a huge amount of people on this topic. And then somebody will say, but Muslims have always done this thing. Right?

00:02:46--> 00:02:54

So for instance, somebody who say there's a dramatic incident that, let's say, but even Muslims, I found a piece of a book in history that told me that Muslims in this country were doing rebellion.

00:02:55--> 00:03:00

So it doesn't matter. At the lay person is not involved in establishing a dramatic, right?

00:03:01--> 00:03:25

We say, the scholars and people must say homosexuality is prohibited, is it? Well, they found the poetry from the 13th century, someone writing homosexual poetry. So what it's not is the people in which the heads it's not Tom, Dick, and Harry, it's not me and the who it's not the average person, it's the scholars. And when we say people have he had, this is actually more specific than even seeing the scholars.

00:03:26--> 00:03:43

Why? Because somebody could be a scholar of narrow Insaaf somebody can be a scholar of grammar, is he from the people of HDI known as the machete is one of the most famous scholars of grammar, almost every book of Tafseer mentioned as the machete.

00:03:44--> 00:03:51

But nobody mentioned this as an opportunity when it comes to al Qaeda create when it comes to why, when I was

00:03:53--> 00:04:32

from Tennessee, that is rp that was problematic. But his knowledge of Arabic grammar was maybe the best of all the scholars, right. But this goes beyond maybe there's a scholar of Hadith. And he's a great scholar of Hadith, but he is not an expert in soil. He's not an expert. In fact, he's not an expert and is involved in making fatawa. Right? So he's an expert in Hadith. We want to know if it's heavy, this idea, we have to go to him, but he's not an expert. He has, he's not one of the people which yet so when we say the people of jihad, we're not just saying the scholars, we're saying specific category of scholars, the ones who have the ability to make HD head, this is number one.

00:04:36--> 00:04:59

For people who wish they had so we have a whole section, the very end about HD head when talking about it, overall, that they understand. We will soon they understand they have great knowledge of film, and that they have a deep knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah. So if you can study all the Saudi you want, if you have a very rudimentary understanding of the sun, the universe

00:05:00--> 00:05:25

A little, you know, very little Hadith, then you don't have the data to use the method, you need to have the method and you also need the data. The data is the Quran and Sunnah. Right? Well, we'll talk about that in more detail later on. The second condition pre condition is that they are contemporaries, that they live in one ah, so let's say all of the Sahaba agreed on something is that no matter for the rest of the Ummah,

00:05:26--> 00:05:42

somebody will come and say, you know, the Sahaba were only a small group of people, there's going to be billions of Muslims to come afterwards. Why should the opinion of the Sahaba should? Or Shouldn't we wait until more people come? And then we say this is a Jamal,

00:05:43--> 00:05:48

say no. Once the entire contemporary age

00:05:49--> 00:06:03

that the people living in that time, once they all agree all the people that he had of that time, once they all agree, these are the That's the condition of which that's once all of us have agreed on something. And they were people in which the ads, now it's established till the Day of Judgment.

00:06:06--> 00:06:09

Then the final condition is that they all agree.

00:06:11--> 00:06:22

They all agree. So if there are 100 scholars in a particular age, and all of them agree on an issue, that's it, this becomes a huge amount, and nobody can break it until the day of judgment.

00:06:24--> 00:06:33

Now, let's say there's 100 scholars in an era, and 99 of them agree on the issue, and one of them disagrees. Is that a generic or not?

00:06:36--> 00:06:37


00:06:38--> 00:06:41

There's actually a difference of opinion on this. Some people call it a generic.

00:06:42--> 00:06:44

They say it's the generic the majority.

00:06:46--> 00:07:07

However, this is interesting, if you think about it. So there's a most scholars will say it is not a GMAT until all of them agree. Okay, that's number one majority, minority will say, if the majority agree, but a small portion disagree, then it's still in your mouth. Okay.

00:07:09--> 00:07:10

But here's the problem.

00:07:14--> 00:07:17

If you say that the agreement of most scholars is a source of law,

00:07:19--> 00:07:20

but most scholars say,

00:07:23--> 00:07:23

the heads

00:07:24--> 00:07:29

it's not a judgment, unless all of them agree, then you're stuck in a circle, right?

00:07:30--> 00:07:35

So this is the problem with that. So if we were to accept their opinion, we have to break their opinion.

00:07:45--> 00:07:45


00:07:46--> 00:07:49

right. The army of Poseidon was a

00:07:50--> 00:07:50

good example.

00:07:53--> 00:07:55

This is basically focused

00:07:58--> 00:08:02

on that decision, and exactly, but he's saying almost everyone disagreed. He was the minority.

00:08:04--> 00:08:08

So can we say he broke him out? And we can say focus not because it was when everybody agrees.

00:08:14--> 00:08:16

In today's day and age, can we make a drought? Yes, we can.

00:08:17--> 00:08:23

Yes, we can. But there are more conditions. We're gonna talk about that first understanding.

00:08:26--> 00:08:39

So, you know, there's a few of these issues, by the way that are circular. Like for example, one person wrote a book, he said, anybody who brings an opinion outside of the form of that head has done haram. This is his book.

00:08:40--> 00:08:41

And he took the book to a scholar.

00:08:42--> 00:08:52

And then the scholar asked him, did anyone did any of the scholars in the form of that have to say this opinion? He said, No. He said, For me to accept your book, I have to reject your book. Right? It's circular.

00:08:54--> 00:09:10

Okay, so this is the conditions of the group. Now, the condition, the inception is not the greatest translation here. What I mean by is the issue. So when we gave the previous example of Riba the issue is rebellion, the inception of the issue is with that right.

00:09:12--> 00:09:16

The group are the scholars, the ruling is that a tunnel understand?

00:09:17--> 00:09:18


00:09:19--> 00:09:29

So the issue has to have two conditions. The first condition is that there is no prior consensus, there is no previous amount.

00:09:30--> 00:09:35

And the second is that there is no existing disagreement. So an example

00:09:38--> 00:09:43

let's say there's an issue, which the scholars disagree on the issue, there's two opinions

00:09:45--> 00:09:46

and then over time.

00:09:48--> 00:09:50

So let's see, let me give me an example.

00:09:52--> 00:09:55

The woman wearing niqab is this fuddled?

00:09:57--> 00:10:00

The scholars of the set have disagreed on this. We

00:10:00--> 00:10:07

Maybe it was 5050 Maybe even it was 60% said that it's wardrobe to wear the niqab and 40% said it's not.

00:10:08--> 00:10:17

Over time what happened today? Almost all the scholars, with small exception will say that Nipah is was the habit not found?

00:10:20--> 00:10:29

Can we now say we as let's pretend 100% of the scholars today, say the father's mister have enough? Can we now see their syndrome out?

00:10:33--> 00:10:35

This is your question I kind of?

00:10:38--> 00:10:40

Yes. If it's under percent of them.

00:10:44--> 00:10:44


00:10:45--> 00:10:48

You can just see the way we see it.

00:10:50--> 00:10:57

But there was no because the difference is if we say there's a gym out that nobody can come with another opinion afterwards, understand?

00:11:08--> 00:11:19

Yes, so if in the very beginning of Islam when the issue of Neo pop came up, if 100% of them agreed on opinion, then it would have been a drought. But because there's a previous disagreement,

00:11:20--> 00:11:23

there's no previous amount, it cannot be established afterwards.

00:11:26--> 00:11:28

Which has been based on

00:11:30--> 00:11:30


00:11:31--> 00:11:32

you can just do

00:11:34--> 00:11:42

something, for sure. But each side has evidences. Yeah. So the only evidence that it's beautiful, you can see swelling.

00:11:51--> 00:12:09

Exactly. So for us to today have an annual amount, it has to be on an issue of which there was no previous amount. They didn't agree on something in the past. If they agreed on something in the past, there was a demand before and we come up with a new opinion, then we're coming head on.

00:12:10--> 00:12:45

So for instance, if the scholars made a drum out of that did that is wrong. And then today, we say You know what? Let's make it if I hadn't had you know, things are too difficult. Let's make it then we're committing haram, right? Because we cannot establish the demand when there's a previous amount that exists. And we cannot establish a Jamal and there's a previous disagreement that exists. It has to be something new. So there's something new that came, let's say Bitcoin, for example, didn't exist before. Of course, everybody disagrees on it. But assuming when Bitcoin came, let's say everybody agreed on it, whether they all agree that's how that or they all agreed is haram,

00:12:45--> 00:12:48

whatever. assuming everybody agreed on it, then it would become a trial.

00:12:58--> 00:13:05

No, if there's an issue that came in the past, and they disagreed, call us there's a there's an established disagreement.

00:13:06--> 00:13:07


00:13:08--> 00:13:08

even one person.

00:13:16--> 00:13:17

Yep, something like that.

00:13:19--> 00:13:23

It's a new group. It's new beliefs. And then there's all this others arena.

00:13:27--> 00:13:29

Okay, so

00:13:33--> 00:13:35

keep losing myself. In

00:13:36--> 00:14:03

the ruling, sorry. Yeah, the ruling is that it has to be related to a binding Islamic ruling. So what do we mean by that? Let's say all the scholars, this could happen in some countries, they agree that Honda's are better than Ford's all of them agree about this? Can we say there's a jump? Well, no, because it's not related to an Islamic ruling has to be an aesthetic ruling.

00:14:05--> 00:14:24

The fourth pillar is a Siva, what is the form of the HTML and there's three types of forms of HTML, there is Jamaats EdgeMax sadiya. The explicit there is Subhuti. The silent and there is what I could manipulate if there is that which is compounded by difference.

00:14:25--> 00:14:50

The first explicit, let's say all the scholars agreed in a gathering, all the scholars came together, let's say there's 100 scholars in which they had the life today. They all came together, and they said, this issue is halal or this issue is wrong. And they all signed. It all said we signed on this. We all agreed with us. This would be a gymnasts Saudi is a clear explicit mouth because they all said this is our opinion.

00:14:52--> 00:15:00

The second is security. Let's say there's 100 scholars and he had a live tonight. Let's see 20 of them. Do

00:15:00--> 00:15:00

Gather together.

00:15:02--> 00:15:11

And they said, You know what, we looked into this issue and we all believe that this is haram, whatever the issue may be, and they all signed it 20

00:15:13--> 00:15:23

But there's 80 Who didn't attend. However, the ad did not say anything. And the statement that the 20 main became well known, became popularized.

00:15:24--> 00:15:27

Everybody knows about it, and the ad didn't say anything.

00:15:29--> 00:15:34

Then we would say this is a generic or

00:15:39--> 00:15:42


00:15:53--> 00:15:54

and shedworking

00:16:03--> 00:16:04

and sharing