Usul Al-Fiqh #09
Date:
Channel: Ibrahim Hindy
Series: Ibrahim Hindy - Usul al-Fiqh
File Size: 57.29MB
Related
- Ibrahim Nuhu – Ramadan Daily #11 The Lifespan Of A Person
- Yahya Ibrahim – Mind, Body & Soul – An Islamic Perspective
- Ibrahim Nuhu – Riyad Us Saliheen 31-10-2023 Hadith 708
- Yahya Ibrahim – Parenting – On The Sunnah
- Muiz Bukhary – Sahih Al Bukhaari #09
- Ibrahim Nuhu – Knowing Allah Through Asma’Ul Husna
- Yahya Ibrahim – Memorise Tabarak
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers discuss various topics related to class times and contracts, including the rules of luck and luck in the Bible and Sun waking, rules of law and the use of the "monster" in the past, and the importance of the rule of being wiped out. They stress the need for rationalization and understanding of history, and stress the importance of the rule for individuals traveling and the need for a rule to be applied to the original case. They also discuss the importance of consistency and the need for a scripture to confirm rules. The speakers stress the importance of the rule for individuals traveling and the need for a rule to be applied to the original case.AI Generated Transcript ©
He will be here woman whether from the Shawnee, southern USA, Liam rewiring of the Timoney, Sonya Cody and my dad. So, I don't know if we're gonna have many students today, a few people send me messages saying they can't make it so I don't know where inshallah
It's okay.
I think the nature of classes is that the number goes down over time.
Yeah,
everything's recorded so
they can get after it. We could do a longer review maybe next week and shut up. But I think we're down to maybe three classes left. So we're almost there. And Shawn well,
so last week, we talked about a navy.
When we went through the different
implications of nahi of prohibition, that implies a quasi Tarim prohibition, that it's haram after the facade that it is invalid. And for that it is immediate must be immediately done. At two karada, it is repeated and it necessitates that we are commanded with its opposite.
We didn't do a lot of
tests last week. So I did a quick one here. Just two questions inshallah.
The first if there's an interest bearing contract in which 50% interest must be paid on debts What do we say well this contract
out of the different principles, we have
to hurry in
yourself shooting I'm gonna hide if you have to act upon with me in Cardiff. Or, you know, he after did facades or now he have to crawl?
Exactly. Now, your feathered facade this contract is invalid. It's passive. It's invalid because it is haram.
Now we say are the people who signed this contract are they sinful?
And if so based on which principle
because of exactly, so we say they're sinful because they're doing something they were prohibited from doing this means it's haram and haram means they are sinful.
We talked about
that alarm and loss last time
and the different implications of alarm and what makes it Haas
what makes them fast?
And today, inshallah we will move on to a remote lock and Animoca yet a mood lock will mocha yet. Now the first question I'm sure you have in your mind
when we talk about what love and mocha yet, we just talked about time and costs.
What is
that which is general and cost is that which is specific? And what locked, we say is unrestricted, and mocha yet is restricted. Now very obvious question you're going to be thinking about is what's the difference between what's left and they seem like to be the same thing.
So let me give an example.
If I said,
give a water bottle to the students.
What is the moon? What is the arm here? And the statements give the water bottle to the students?
The students is the arm.
Okay, so if I said given the water bottles, give the water bottles to the students. And the brother takes the water bottle and he gives it to only the students on this table and doesn't give any other students water?
Has he done what he was commanded to do?
No.
Why? Because the when we say give the water to the students, the students is I'm it's general. It means all of the students. He didn't fulfill the commandments until he gives the water to all of the students. Then he has done the arm. All of the students have received the water.
But if I said give water bottles to a students from the students to a students from the students,
and he took the water bottle and he gave it to one person.
One of you or maybe he gave it to two of you. did he fulfill the command
Ament.
Yes. So the first incident when I say give the water bottle to the students, it means all of the students. This is I'm General.
But when I said give a water bottle to a student from the students, if you gave one student or two students or all of the students, as long as he gave a minimum of one, he fulfilled what I said. And that's what luck. That's the difference between what luck and I'm
so it applies to everyone when we say that there's something in the Quran and Sunnah that is arm that is general, it applies to everyone. When we say that there's something that is what luck. We're saying it's unrestricted, which means that it deals with one that is indefinite, and not qualified and not limited. So if he gave the water bottle to one student, he fulfilled what we said, if he gave it to two students, he fulfilled what I said, if he gave it to all the students, he fulfilled what I said, right? So it's one that is indefinite, and not qualified or limited.
Whereas the ion means every single person has to be incorporated in it.
And the opposite
is then deals with something that is specified or quantified either by word or by description.
So now, if we have something in the Quran and Sunnah in our new source, that is not luck, it's unrestricted.
And then
we have something else that restricts it
does it remain unrestricted or does it become restricted?
We say it depends on the circumstances, there's different circumstances. So we have one thing in the Quran and Sunnah that is unrestricted. And another thing that is restricted do we restrict the unrestricted with the restricted? Do we use the Moca yet over the block? We say it depends on this situation. The first situation here
that you are and would love to fill Elcom was seven.
Out of the two notice that we have the two Quran and Sunnah whatever the Hadith al hadith is there, if they agree with each other, they can form to one another. And both the hook the ruling and the sub the basis, the basis or the rationales, the basis of it, we say then it is your client.
So what is an example of this?
Allah subhanaw taala tells us in the area of TM mum of making TM mum.
Um, so how would you how come? What ad could wipe your
hands and your faces, wipe your faces and your hands? Right? So one verse says, wipe your hands in your face in your hands, another verse and sort of take them out either once or who they will do he can ye de camino, right? Wipe your face and your hands from it.
From its meaning from the dirt.
The first verse, wipe your face in your hands is unrestricted.
We could understand that to mean all you have to do is wipe your hands and your face just wipe it.
But the second one says wipe it from
the dirt, ie you need to take some of the dirt in your hand and then wipe your hand and wipe your face right.
So do we restrict the unrestricted verse, the verse that says wipe unrestrictedly? Can somebody come and say basically, can someone come and say, you can make TM without dirt? Because Allah says wipe your hand in your face and that's it. There's one verse that says wipe your hand in your face. So the person says, Listen, you don't need dirt, you don't need anything. All you need to do is just wipe your hands wipe your face you're done.
Can he say that? We say no. Why? Because there is another verse that restricts this, why does it restrict it?
What is the hokum of both verses? What is the ruling of both verses?
What is it telling us to do?
Tamil both of them are about tandem, the ruling of both Istanbul what is the setup the cause of both of these is
to make Tamil right? Yeah, rather the salah wanting
intermix saw that and the absence of water. So both of them have the same ruling, both of them have the same basis, and therefore we restrict the meaning. So when we come to the first verse, we say you have to restrict to me this is an unrestricted verse. It's open ended, we have to restrict it with the second verse.
Another example for instance, probably let's add a common Mater toward them. Allah says haram upon you is to eat the dead animals and a dem blood.
Okay, another verse
says, Illa, a poner. Matan, I will demand misfortune.
Allah says, Except you may not eat the dead or the blood that is spilled, that is flowing.
If we only read the first verse, the first verse says blood is haram. Right?
That's unrestricted. That means we would say eating the liver is haram. Eating spleen is haram. Eating kidneys are haram right?
But the second verse says it must be
blood that is flowing, the blood of the liver, the blood of the kidney is not flowing blood. It's not done us for him, right? So the second verse is restricting the first verse, both of these verses are speaking about the same hook, the same ruling, and they have the same sub.
Therefore, we restrict the unrestricted the Mortlock with the Mocha yet.
Now we have a second category
where there is a difference between both the hokum and the sub. So we have a lot and we have a mocha yet, but they differ in hokum and sub
and an example here, ALLAH SubhanA, Allah says, I said, if it was
AD, AD,
the thief, man or woman cut their hand.
Okay? What is the hand? Allah doesn't tell us? It's unrestricted, right? We understand what a hand is.
Now, somebody might say, Look, this versus Mukluk.
And Allah subhanaw taala, when he's talking about will do. He says, fellow sick folks who do, how can ye d come in and more often wash your face and your hands to the elbow.
So can somebody say, look, the first verse that says cut off the hand, is unrestricted. The second verse says, wash the hand to the elbow, therefore, when we cut off the hand, we should cut it off at the elbow.
So here we say, what is the ruling of these two verses one of them is about
stealing, theft, the other one is about will do. So the ruling is different. What is the sub of both of them, the sub of cutting off the hand is punishing the thief, this sub of will do is to intend our sada. So the sub is different, the hook them is different. So do we restrict it we do not restrict it. Meaning we don't understand cutting the hand in relation to where we make our whoodle. Right.
Basically, we don't understand these two together, we understand them separately.
The third situation,
they agree are they conform in ruling, but they do not conform in some of in basis.
And here most scholars say we do restrict the meaning.
So
the verse of the heart, the heart was a practice they would do in Arabia, where a man would swear an oath that he will never go to his wife again. So he divorced her but he swears an oath I will never go to you and one meaning or another.
And
if they swore this oath and they acted like that's it, it's an irrevocable divorce. And Allah forbade this. And Allah says, If a man did this, if you swore to the woman literally they would swear You are like my mother. So basically your haram for me forever, swear an oath like this. So Allah says, if the person did this, and he wants to now take back his wife, that's a hero raka that's an Rockler. That's him in company at NASA. He must free a slave.
Okay, so the first verse says he must free a slave.
Another verse in Surah, Nisa
says
Mixed about if a Muslim killed another Muslim accidentally.
And Allah says for to hurry Raka. That's Mina.
In the first instance, in Bihar,
Allah only commands the person to free a slave. And he doesn't tell us who the slave is, are they? Most of them? Are they believers or the unbelievers doesn't say anything. The second verse says, free a slave, that is a believer for two minutes, they must be a believer.
So now is the ruling of these two things the same.
No one is about the harm. The other is about killing someone accidentally.
Right?
Sorry, the cause of these are not the same. Right, the cause of these are not the same. The cause of the one is the heart of the cause of the other is killing. But the ruling is the same. The hokum is the same, the ruling is free a slave, even though the cause of both of them are different.
So here we say because the ruling is the same,
you are freeing a slave for expiation,
then we will use the mucoid over the bookmark. So we will say, even in the case of the heart, if a person is freeing a slave, he should free a believing slave.
Does that make sense?
Killing
the idea.
So the sub but like you said the sub is different. But they're both the type of Kasara and the Hakama. Both of them are the same. So
this is the hokhmah both of them. So they say we do we take multiple and there are some scholars who don't take this, but the majority of them that have to take this
take the Matakohe vermilyea In this instance.
The fourth situation is that the cause is the same but the ruling is different.
So TM and will do have the same cause both of them were intending to pray. Right? But the ruling is different.
So Allah says, we'll do fell Sidhu would you have come while at Cumberland Morava. Wash your hands, your faces in your hands up till the elbow. When he talks about Tammam, he says fellow See, Ruby will do ecomo ad come wash your face and your hands. And Allah does not mention all the way to the elbow when he talks about to him.
So should we wipe when we're making TM? Should we wait all the way to the elbow?
We say here No. And this is according to the majority of the scholars.
Why do we say no? Because they do not agree in how
sorry they did not. Yeah, they did not agree. And
even though the sub both are the same, they don't agree in the ruling
TM and we'll do our different rulings.
And therefore when you make TM, you only wipe your hands and your face you don't wipe all the way to the elbow, when you make will do you wipe all the way to the elbow.
So in the end, very easy way to understand this. If the ruling is the same, then we restrict them. We'll talk with the Moca yet. If the ruling is not the same, then we don't
so simple way
Okay, let's look at some examples. We have remotelock Animoca yet, we already talked about this. So this is the A of the heart. Those who pronounce the heart from their wives and then wish to go back on what they said. Then they must free a slave before they touch one another. Okay, the second verse the Mocha age, whoever kills a believer by mistake then the freeing of a believing sleeve and the Mocha here's the believing slave. Okay.
What is this
a difficult help, or to have a seven
or both?
Because the ruling the same or the cause the same or both are the same.
The ruling is the same. And so do we apply the Mocha during the potluck? Yes.
Okay,
here one verse. Allah subhanaw taala says
bring two witnesses from amongst your men.
This is the motto of the Mocha yet says and bring today.
Just witnesses to witnesses who are just from amongst from amongst you.
So do we have to bring a just witness or not?
Do these agree and willing or agree in cars are agreeing both?
ruling?
Both right. They agree in both and we use the multigrid over the month of cursory ruling.
I thought it was both
Okay.
Whoever faster Ramadan. So this one's interesting. Whoever fasted Ramadan with Eman EMAT and mighty seven will throw the whole matter for them. Right this hadith Whoever fasts Ramadan with Eman
and expecting reward from Allah subhanaw taala their previous sins will be forgiven.
Then we have this other Hadith or slaughter comes from Joomla and Joomla Ramadan Ramadan Cathar attorney Marina Houma
that the five daily prayers and run Joomla to the next July and Ramadan to Ramadan expiate the sins provided each 20 mil color provided the major sins are not committed.
So why is this Mortlock and why is this mocha yet?
Exactly so this hadith restricts this one because this one says Whoever fasts Ramadan will accept their sins will be forgiven. This one says provided the major sins are not committed. So now it's restricting it saying your Ramadan will aggravate your sins. So provided the major sins are not committed.
So here are the rulings the same. The outcome is the same.
Yes, the seven is the same.
Yes, and we use the MCI over them oh, by the way you can you you can flip these. You can make this hadith, the Mortlock in this hadith and mocha yet why?
How can this hadith be the mocha? Yes.
Yes.
This is also expecting a fast
image like this, because this one says you have to have Iman and you have to have this. Right. So this one also restricts this one so you can understand them both ways.
Okay, so now we finished the data that the inferences which is the most difficult part of the class. So that's all done Hamdulillah. Now we can come back to the dairy the different sources of law.
So let's talk about the s. The s means analogy.
What is class? How do we define it? It's tying together
making an appendage tying two things together a new case which we call a thorough
and original case, which we call us.
We tie these two things together based on a common that
we talked about way back in the beginning, I let meaning a rationale a reasoning a basis for a ruling. So you have an original case.
And the this original case has a law has a legal reasoning.
And we have a new case that has the same reasoning in it. So we make an analogy between them.
So if they're older or they hook them shorter I have a known issue is compared to that of a new issue they share the same than chaos is carried out so let's say you have a situation a issue number a issue a issue number one, and the city gives a ruling about it. And let's say the ruling is that it is haram.
Then issue B comes issue B is new. The Sharia didn't say anything about issue B
and the reasoning of why issue a is haram
also exists in issue B
even though the Sharia never spoke about this new issue. But the same reasoning for this one exists in this one. So then we make PS and we say it takes the same ruling. So if this is haram then this is also one that's what classes
so an example the example everyone uses,
hammer
the Sharia answers hammer is haram. Why is hammer haram what is the Allah? What's the reasoning for it being haram?
intoxicates our mind, so the intoxication is the law. So now a new drink is invented.
And the Sharia doesn't say anything about this drink, but we look at it and we find that It intoxicates. So is it also haram? Yes, we need to Yes. And we say it takes the same ruling as the hump because the same Isla, the same reasoning is in both things.
Okay, so you have the US the original case is
the forearm the new case is whatever whiskey whatever new drink has come up the eyelid between them as the scar is intoxication, the ruling between the Mr. Hareem and these are the pillars of the ESA and we're going to speak about that in the next slide inshallah.
So PS
can be done
two different ways.
There's PS on Puri Akane Fe M for the connection fad. And as unpolitical, Jana. So speak about these two things. The common factor
can be by means of joining together. And this is the example we just use of
a drink that intoxicating hump. This is joining together two things, political Gemma, that's the second one.
But there could also be PS by means of denying the differences denying differentiation. So let me give an example. Let's say the brother has a red pen. Okay. And let's say I said,
Brother, please concentrate in class. And don't write with your red pen.
Okay, so let's say I say this concentrate, don't write with your red pen. I think he's doodling or something like that. So I say, concentrate, don't write with your red pen. So he pulls out of his pocket a black pen and he starts to do
Did he follow the instructions? If you're a volunteer, he would say yes.
But the rest of us will say no. Why is he contradicting the instructions? He will say? You said, you said stop writing with a red pen and writing with a black pen. We say this is a scenario where the difference between these two things, the redness and the blackness of the pen don't matter. What is the basis of what we're speaking about? It's concentrating in class, we want you to concentrate so whatever pen you're using, doesn't matter. The description of the pen doesn't have any bearing on the issue at hand. So do we make an analogy between the black pen and the red pen? We say no, there is no differentiation between them. And so this is the SP Nephele, fad it the s by means of denying
the difference denying the differentiation, meaning that we deny there's a difference to begin with, between the black black pen and the red pen when it comes to this issue.
Another example
is what so called Lahoma of don't say off to your parents. Now somebody says, Okay, I don't say off to them, I say
we say is there a difference? In the letters, there's a difference, just like they're in the color, there's a difference between the two pens. But we say there's no difference in terms of the impact of the ruling. So this is the S VENA fieldfares.
Right, so we're denying the differentiation in a way that impacts the ruling.
Okay, the second type of class is by means of joining together between two issues.
And this has several types.
The first is the SLR Illa.
That clears the analogy on the basis of V.
V,
the ruling
the I love the hokum it's called Class Delilah. So we gave the example of hum. So the outcome
is the scar intoxication. Therefore if another drink comes in also intoxicates they share the same law. So they are both haram they both have the same ruling. This is clear Celerina.
The second is classic Delilah. And this will sound very similar to classic ala but there's a difference between them.
The acid the learner is analogy of indication where we are looking for the Leela the evidence of the cause, not the cause itself.
So
let's say
in the first example
We're saying we have two drinks.
Both of them intoxicate. Therefore both of them are haram. That's the first one.
In the second one,
let's say they said we have two drinks.
Alcohol hungry is haram.
And the second drink has alcohol in it.
And alcohol is an indication. But there's 10% alcohol in it. Alcohol is an indication that the idea is there.
It's an indication that it could potentially intoxicated.
So he's not making the analogy directly from the intoxicating factor. He's making the analogy from evidence of the law, the intoxicating factor existing understand the difference.
It seems like you're splitting hairs. But basically, you did not establish the evidence of the law itself. You established evidence of the existence of the law.
So we found an indication that the idea exists, rather than saying, definitely that will exist. We drank it and we became drunk. And we know for sure it became it exists, right? Versus we see evidence that there exists in this. That's all the difference between them.
Okay, the second one is the acid Shebaa.
And this is where there is a predominance of similarity between two things. So let's say for example,
we have an original case, musical instruments are hot on the *ty assets says they are haram. Okay?
Now we have this new thing, where you take people's voices,
and you put it into a software and you play with the software, you modify it, you layer it, you play around with it until the sounds of people speaking.
sounds exactly like musical instruments.
Understand.
So we say, we, you have one thing that Sheree has said is haram musical instruments.
And one thing that Sharia established as permissible, the voice of a human beings permissible, whether they're singing or not, whatever, it's permissible. So this is haram and this is permissible. Now we have this new thing, which is the software that takes the sounds and plays around with it, and comes up with some other sound great.
We look at this new thing, and we say is it more similar to the sound of a human? Or is it more similar to the sound of a musical instrument and if it's more similar to the sound of the musical instrument than we say, it takes the ruling of the musical instrument, this is the SS Shuddha because of the similarity, we make the analogy
the final type is PS LX
and this is by
country contradicting the cause. So you find two things that are opposites, and therefore it takes the ruling of the opposite. And the best example we mentioned way back in the beginning the first class we had the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said if any of you fulfills your Shukla with your wife, you will receive a reward. He said O Messenger of Allah We are fulfilling our shuttleq our desires and we're getting a reward the prophets of Allah wherever you send them send Paula Bella he said yes, but that okay that will have you had that in Canada who
if he
were to do this and haram he would get a sin. They said yes, he said likewise, if he does it in halal, he will get a reward. So, he has access we give the opposite ruling to the foreign to the new case than the original because the idea is the opposite. So Zina, here is the US
and the law of Zina satiating one's desires and haram.
Then marriage relationships incur reward, because there is the opposite. satiating the desires in that which is halal. And so this is the S lakhs
Okay, let's do some
test.
Someone wants to make the s of Nurb it now if it was a type of drink, fermented drink
and they would intoxicate so they want as of Navid with hammer because both of
Mr. intoxications what type of is this? Sorry what type of class is this? I gave it away
the SLA law
okay the class of saying us with off to our parents off is haram. So please make the as we say, is also haram. What type of TS is this?
Nephele Farah
Okay, somebody wants to make Ps of beer with come on the basis that both of them contain alcohol.
This is what
the acid the ladder. So based on the indication indication of alcohol, alcohol is not that regular, the URL is intoxication. but alcohol is an evidence it's an indication of the existence of intoxication.
So this is the analogy of indication of Pasadena
I know
well, even today, I mean, somebody comes up with a new drink, we're gonna find out people are intoxicated, and we're gonna give a hug on it.
Okay, they ask that the Hadith so there's a hadith that it is haram for someone for a man to enter a room to make someone stand up and to sit in his spot. Some get up and I say where you're sitting because the Hadith and others and the Hadith says the module. It's haram for a man to do this. If we made the US and we said this Hadith also applies to a woman. If a woman enters a room makes another woman stand up and sits in her spot can we make this class what is the type of class
so the Nuffield family are saying in this instance, there's no difference between man and woman
for about to change, the question was
drugs as well, yeah. You're gonna use the same? Yes. Okay, let's talk about the
pillars of the s.
So, we said the pillars of the s
allows last
hook El Faro, in the original case, the ruling of that case, the new case and the law, the basis or the reasoning so if we use our example of hum, and whatever whiskey or weed marijuana for example.
So we say the original case is common. The ruling of comedies that it is haram. The Father, the new case is marijuana. The Isla is intoxication. They both intoxicated therefore they're both haram
okay.
What are the conditions of these pillars? So, the US is the US
it is an original case it is established by the lead of our Shediac
the hook of this case has three conditions. Number one it must be more
work and meaning established. And when we say it is welcome what is the opposite of welcome here
it's not Leticia. The opposite of work and here is Min Soo.
So we say it is an established ruling that is not abrogated.
So for example, if somebody
for instance.
Allah subhanaw taala mentions we mentioned this verse in the Quran. For Lavinia to our phone I'm in Cambodia, the Runa is why Jen will see it and he is working Metatron How will the lady approach if one of you dying and your wife is left behind?
She should be maintained for a year.
So she her idea is one year, her husband's estate pays for her for a whole year. And she cannot get married for a whole year, according to this verse.
Now if somebody says, Okay, this verse exists, now there's a man who divorced his wife three times. So it's off that and it revocable divorce
Can we make the yes and say this verse says her idea is one year after the man dies? Because that's a permanent separation he died right. So now he divorced her irrevocably This is also permanent separation. Therefore her idea in this case should also be a year. Can someone say this?
And if not why?
We talked about this verse a long time ago.
Exactly the verses mensual. Right. They differ divorce will ever widowed woman is not one year, it's four months, four months and 10 days. Exactly. So because this verse is meant, so you cannot make the s with it. Because the ruling is not working. The ruling is not the original ruling they're using is not established. It's not working.
It has been so.
Okay, the second is that the ruling must be my pool and manner. Its meaning must be understood. If we can we can rationalize the meaning of the hook. What do I mean by this?
We I can assure you that Islamic rulings, some of them can be rationalized. We can understand the meaning of it.
And some of them cannot be rationalized. They are taboo the
ritualistic its meanings cannot be understood. What is an example of this?
For instance? Why do we pray three rockhouse for a Muslim?
Why not for why not? Five? Why do we pray for archives for us? Why not to?
What's the reason? No mind can rationalize this. This is not something to be rationalized. To begin with. This is Tom booty.
How many pebbles do we throw at the gym rat?
Seven how many times we go round the caterpillar fertile off? Seven.
So we say can we just do five? Like I said, you can't this is not something to be rationalized. So these are rulings that are tagged booty. Then there are other rules, rulings that the scholars call to actually can be understood can be rationalized meaning we can understand the reasonings the meaning of the ruling.
So for instance, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said,
life will call the role of
the judge should not issue a ruling while he is angry. Can we understand the basis the meaning of this, of this, of this ruling? Yes, when you're angry, you lose your senses. You don't judge fairly, you lose sight have the facts in front of you, that harms your ability to see the truth and the judgment, because you're in a state where your mind is not calm and can look at all the evidence in front of it. So we can and we can rationalize why the prophets of Allah Islam said, the judge should not pass judgment while he's angry.
The third condition
is that the ruling must be fabrics be late EPS it must be established without PS.
So we said the ruling has to be established. But now we're saying it must be established without the usage of the essay itself.
Meaning we can't make class. So we have an original rule. We make an analogy for a second rule. Then we take the second rule and we make an analogy off of that rule. We can't do that. We have to go back to the original.
And
you know, sometimes it seems like this is splitting hairs. But really when you think about it, people could end up going to somewhere really strange, if you keep making an analogy and then making an analogy over that analogy and analogy over that analogy.
But this is the way that we the scholars have given us conditions. So for example,
if we stuck with our example we said weed is haram because of the analogy with
can we then take weed and make an analogy based on weed to something else? No, we go back to Hungary itself. So the new thing we make analogy directly with Hungary.
For instance, the Prophet also said It's haram to sell to trade.
elbowroom will war right like
bought wheats for wheat or barley for barley.
You can't trade it for each other
can somebody say can we make an analogy based on barley for barley that we also can't trade rice for rice? So yes, but can we say based on we can't trade rice for rice, we're going to make another analogy corn for corn. We say no go back to the original don't make an analogy based on an analogy.
Okay, so these are the principles of the hook.
What are the principles of the or the conditions of the forearm?
We say a few conditions. The forearm is the new case. So in our example, this is cannabis, marijuana, or whiskey or whatever
we say
the first condition of the new case being a valid new case is that there is no scripture. There is no new source, there is no pneus nothing in the Quran and Sunnah. No scripture that specifically addresses it.
Because if there's something in the Quran and Sunnah that specifically addresses it,
then there is no need for us to begin with. Because class is only when the Sharia is silent about something.
And if we're making class that contradicts the Sharia, you can't make class when Shediac contradicts that right? So an example somebody says, I will loan you $100 So long as they make a profit off of it, so I will loan you $100 Bring it back to me 110.
And you say to him, Brother, how is this headed?
He tells you look based off of PS Allah permitted business well, I had Allahu Allah, let me the business had at making a profit is halal. Therefore, why should I not profit off of giving you a loan I give you $100 Give it back to me under the title.
We say?
The Gnosis the Quran, and Sunnah already spoke specifically about this. It made it a haram. Right? It spoke specifically about charging money on money
and profiting off of the loan.
So you can't make the s where the Quran and Sunnah already spoke about the issue. It's not a new case to begin with.
The second point
is that the Allah exists inside of it or within it. So for instance,
someone says I want to make the Yes.
That this new drink
is haram. Because the new drink intoxicates and hum intoxicates. Okay, makes sense. But then we look at this new drink, people start to drink it and nobody gets drunk.
And there is nothing in it that would intoxicate someone.
So we say you cannot make the analogy because the inlet is not there. That does not exist in that thing. So somebody could claim that the idea is there, but the idea has to actually be there. Right? This is important, because people make this mistake sometimes.
Even for instance, somebody says,
But why Budweiser? 0% is haram.
Because it's a beer, and It intoxicates. But it's 0% it doesn't intoxicated.
Maybe we don't want to drink it because we don't want to look like people where they don't make similarity between us and the people that drink Budweiser is okay, this is a different issue. But if you're gonna make clear, the idea has to be there. So if you're making clear saying it's an intoxicant, the intoxicating factor has to be there.
Finally, we said her como Hockman us, it has to hold the same ruling as the original case.
So if somebody said
trading barley for barley is haram
and I make an analogy based on this to say, trading rice for rice, is my crew.
Is that possible? No. Why? Because he's making class it's fine. You can make this class that barley for barley is haram. That class has to be that rice for rice is haram. You can't change the ruling. You can't say it's more cruel, no, it doesn't work like that. If you make the playoffs, then the ruling of the original has to be the same for that which you are making an analogy for.
Finally, the law the basis for the reasoning we say there are a number of conditions here.
The first condition
is that the ALA has to be transitive.
What do we mean by transitive? It means it must be able to transfer to a new situation.
So an example here
when you are traveling, you can shorten your prayers
instead of praying for rock I was hoping you can pray to
what is there a lot of this
traveling exactly
can you transfer this to another situation? No, it only applies to a person who's traveling.
You can say, I drove around my city,
hydro from Mississauga, 100 kilometers 300 kilometers around Mississauga, therefore I'm traveling, I'm gonna shorten my prayers. No,
it only exists when traveling takes place. So this is a law, that it cannot transfer to other situations, right.
The second condition is that it does not invalidate the original case. The law does not invalidate the original case. What do we mean by this?
Somebody says look homeless haram.
Because
it leads to death or causes death.
He says hunger is haram. The Allah is not intoxication. The arena is that it causes death.
So we take his this, I lead this reasoning. And we look at all the hunger at the time of the Prophet sallallahu.
Maybe some of them had very high alcohol content, people would die when they drank it, but most of the people would drink alcohol and not die.
So therefore, this idea is invalid. Because if we took the law and we applied it to the original case, we find that it doesn't even apply. it invalidates the original case. We would say based on this I love camera at the time of the Prophet wasn't even if this was true, right? So invalidates the case and it would not this would be an invalid and let the lesson valid, because when we apply it to the original case, it does not actually apply.
The third is that the law law you hardly Fonasa an average man. The law does not contradict Venus in in the Quran and Sunnah. Or the HTML.
So if the Sharia law says this is the law
the Sharia tells us the I love come is a scar. Right? There's Quran Hadith about this. Somebody else comes as no, no, the I love comedy, something different. Like we said it causes death.
We reject the Allah because it contradicts him out and it contradicts no source, right? And either one is enough to reject the red law
the fourth, is that a war that the law is apparent?
We talked about VA here before.
So let's say that there isn't a hukum in the Quran and Sunnah.
The Allah is not mentioned in the Quran and Salah, the reasoning is not mentioned. So we are so this is important to understand there's two kinds of endless right? There is a law that is mentioned specifically in the Quran and Sunnah. Like with humble, right? The prophet tells us the reason it's Haram is because of a scar because It intoxicates so the I love hammer is in the Quran and Sunnah there cannot be dispute over it.
Some of our cam or many of our camp vi Allah is not mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah the reasoning is not mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah. And we extract the reasoning, the scholars will extract the reasoning.
So when we're trying to extract the reasoning, the reasoning must be VA here. Now what did we say VA had means?
A parent, right? If there's
a few possibilities of what they could mean, this must be the most likely the most apparent of the possibilities. You cannot extract a law and the law is unclear. Or it's not likely or there's other possibilities that are equally likely. We say no there has to be law here.
The next one is that it is discernible. What do we mean by it's discernible.
It's something that is tangible, quantifiable.
So if somebody says
the I love shortening our prayer, during travel, the inlet is not travel actually the the ALA is hardship because traveling is a hardship. So the only less hardship
is hardship something we can tangibly discern. We can tangibly quantify, no we cannot write guess
for
hardship, or
but they have more
I actually don't know if that's the law.
There's a difference of opinion on that.
But then even then they're able to quantify with certain things.
Unable to leave your house roads or dangerous things that they quantify.
Like, for example,
sorry, those are dangerous, you know, like,
yeah.
No, but the muddy roads when it was raining extensively was difficult for them to pass away, even dangerous for them.
never existed before, for sure.
For sure, but my point is that there's a difference of opinion on that point about whether they can use hardship in that instance. And even when they try to use hardship in that instance, they still come up with conditions to quantify it. That's my point.
Here, we're saying that if somebody were to say the hardship of travel, is the reason we can shorten our prayers, the problem with this is that there's no condition whatsoever, what is considered hardship? For one person, it's super easy to travel another person's super difficult. How do we quantify that? There's no discernible way to discern what hardship means?
Is it based on distance? Is it based on how painful it feels for a person?
Can't
the magazine?
No, I'm saying when you tried to take the ruling and traveling here.
They tried to tie hardship for combining the prayers with conditions related to the elements
for the most part, as far as I know.
But now you're getting into very controversial areas.
Let's stick with it not controversial, was for the class.
Because, yeah,
for sure.
But this is the example they use here that if we were to say it's because of hardship, the hardship is not quantifiable in this instance. So to extract a law, like this would not be permissible in this circumstance. The final point is consistency. What do we mean by consistent?
The ruling exists wherever the internet exists, and the ruling goes away wherever the hind leg goes away, and vice versa.
So if someone were to say,
the idea of shortening our prayer during travel is not because of the travel itself, but because of the hardship, or back to our example, then we would look at the example of Medina and the Sierra of our Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam, how many situations at our time of our Prophet were difficult? How many times were they tying their stomachs from hunger? How many times were they, you know, facing difficulties, and yet,
despite that hardship, they didn't show in their prayer.
So, we say consistency is a condition of the law that is extracted. So there must be there
whenever the ruling must be there whenever there are less there and vice versa. So when if we say that the travel shortening our prayer during travel the rely less hardship, then whenever we find hardship, we should find that ruler basically.
So if it's not consistent then it should not exist.
Okay.
Some examples Inshallah, before we conclude
here an example if a man commits Zina, we should imprison him based on tes that a female who commit Zina is imprisoned based on the verse that Allah subhanaw taala says, Those who commit Zina from your women then bring four witnesses from amongst them, against them from amongst you. If they testify then confine the guilty women to their homes until death ordains it takes them or Allah or dance for them another way.
Why is this not valid?
Because it's been sued. The ruling itself has not established because other rulings came after.
It is permissible to charge a fee on your loan and to make a profit off of it based on class that Allah permitted business and earning profits. Why is this not valid?
must have interests.
So there is a scripture that is specific. And other writing is very similar to a table. It's hard to see.
Okay, it's permissible to shorten your thought offer on the camera to only four times based on the ads that Google has for us.
Why is this not valid? Yes.
I think there's more than one reason.
So two things
cannot be rationalized. And also there is specific
rules about how many times we make fall off, right. So both reasons, make it not established. Okay, someone says it is permissible for men to wear silk based on the fact that women are allowed to wear silk and there is no real difference between the two genders. What do we say this? Why is this not valid?
Sorry.
contradicts the Scripture. I should have brought different examples. I just realized right now all of them are scripture for pretty much
any instance was
created. That's all that I have for today. Anybody have any questions?
No. Okay, Inshallah, like I said, we're almost, this is the ninth class, I think. And I think there's only maybe three more classes before we're done in sha Allah. So I'm pretty close to the end. Exactly. Malkajgiri Shala see you all next week.
kind of laughing with him that can shadow Allah either hands and stuff. It'll go on into the lake said I want to
hear Yeah,