Ibrahim Hindy – Usul al-Fiqh #11
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of protecting one's religion through the use of masala, protecting health and wealth through deeds and loudspeakers, finding proof of pregnancy, and learning to translate knowledge into practical application. They also touch on the use of narratives in quizzes and the importance of finding the right time to present a message to the Prophet while building a project. The pandemic is a setback for the US, but the course on COVID-19 will be recorded and uploaded on YouTube. The course is designed to help children learn about the virus and prepare for it, and will be conducted online.
AI: Summary ©
Welcome to the nail Sato salam ala Rasulillah who either added he also he only Allah
from the chakra somebody recently MDR and he sent me a photo Cody.
So inshallah today's I think 12 class and inshallah the last class in the course.
Like I mentioned, it might be a little bit longer I don't know if it'll be that much longer to be honest than a regular class. But this way in sha Allah will cover everything that's left to cover with the lab.
First we'll do a quick overview of what we talked about last week.
We spoke about the sources of Islamic law actually began before this. We talked about the law right?
Last week.
So he talks about the pathways of law that comes to us either we how do we extract the law? How do we know what the holder of a ruling is, either through a GMAT or through NUS course through is dingbat deduction that we went through the different categories of this.
We spoke about when we're extracting it from the NUS it can either be Saudi, or law here or through an email with 10 V. And we went through the different categories of how that may present itself.
We said just like PS V deduced a lot which is very similar, how do we deduce the
different ways either through trial and categorization or through the appropriate description, that is intellectually rationally the only appropriate description or through a Shiva where we look for something that is very similar to it in the Sharia, or through a Dharan so that which, whenever the ruling exists, the only exists and vice versa?
We went through this last week that we talked about the different sources of Islamic law. We've already covered the Quran and the Sunnah and the GMAT and the s. And last week, we covered Methodist Sahabi and Charlotte and Atlanta. So, what is remaining is most of the Hadamard salah the public interest is the Hassan which is juristic preference and is this hub which is continuity or the presumption of continuity.
So COVID is Sahabi we said there are different categories there are different
statements of a Sahabi there is malah you Paulo will write you that which cannot be said by opinion. We said if it's a hobby for instance, says
you know, the description of Jenna is this or the description of the Hellfire is that this is not a matter of opinion if he says this, even if he doesn't say the prophets of Allah when using them said it. We will give it awkward Rafa, we would raise it and say he must have gotten this from the prophets in the love letters.
There's also the edge matter that is sorry. So all of the Sahaba if they were to say one thing, for instance, all of them said Al Quran Calam Allah, the Quran is the words of Allah. This is Ah, man. And of course it is a source. If one of the Sahaba says something, and it becomes popular, and none of us have to reject it. This is also a Germanic gymnastic booty. Then we have if the one of the Sahaba says something, and nobody rejects it, nobody says contrary to it. But we don't know. Was it popular or not? Did people find out about it? Did it become famous or not the statement of his we still take it as an evidence even though it is not. Hmm. And the final category is, if one of the
Sahaba says something, and another one of the Sahaba contradicts him says the opposite. Then we say this is not a source of law. Right? It's not an evidence.
Okay, so here's some
examples. We didn't take this last week.
So this is an incident in which three people testified against the movie Iran, that he committed Zina
and happened in the time vulnerable probably a long way. But how many do we need?
When for so only three? The fourth one, you know, said I didn't see for sure. I just saw two people next to each other.
So if a person
accuses someone else of Zina, and they don't have four witnesses, that becomes Karth. But is making the accusation of Zina.
One of the people of the backdrop
here, I'm going to talk about the Allahu unset to him took off the shahada to make Toba and I will accept your Shahada.
So, even Kodama, Wrightson and Makani. If the one who makes God of if he repents his shahada is accepted. This is the consensus of the Sahaba as it was narrated the tomato the Allahu man would say to me Bakra when he
testified against an Molera repenting I will accept your testimony. And no one rejected this. So it was a consensus. So now what is this? Is this a drama?
Or is Is it meant to have a hobby? Or is it not an evidence? Or is it something where the evidence has been lifted? It's nothing has happened or something like that
yes
yeah, so instead you might have looked at
I might have said this, no one rejected it.
Okay, next example. In our model, the alarm went unsaid, the one who makes TM mum
tam should be done for every sada even if there is no Hadith hadith is when you lose your bulldog. So even if you didn't do anything to lose your will, but you're in a state of Tamil right so you're making Tamlyn is a Tamil should be done for every slot.
Even 100 hates me, he said it is not known that anyone opposed this from the Sahaba What is this now? Is it a B, C or D?
Yes, why is it see?
You
okay, so you're saying there's no consensus. Why is there no consensus? You said B, you said there's a consensus. Why is there why is there a GMAT or why is there not a GMAT?
No one was known to say no. What are the elements we need to say that there is a Jamel?
Yes,
we need it to be well known. What's the last thing? So if someone asked to say something, nobody rejects it? Nobody says contrary to it. And also that it's well known. In the first instance, this is a big case on what is the Khalifa. He's saying this in front of lots of people. Everybody knows what Omar said, Right? Here. We don't know. Did people know about it? Did they not know about what had been said? We don't know. Nobody said opposite to him. But we don't know if enough people heard this. Right. So it becomes Methodist habit is the statement of one of the sahaba.
Okay, the principle
in the matter is that one who's in a state of high depth of impurity should not touch the most half regardless of whether it is major impurity, which requires a motion, or a minor impurity, which requires will do. This is the statement of the majority of the earth.
And it was narrated from earlier of the Allahu Han and saddened, Rama and cinnamon and it's not known that any of the Sahaba disagreed.
This is
because they gave you a lot of names, but we don't know if it was that popular. What they said
are good.
So what they mean by this is the this the Sahaba who are doing
and yes, the principle is that they are
okay, so we talked about shaman Atlanta, we said there's four different forms of it, there is that which is established as part of our Sharia. So ALLAH SubhanA, Allah mentions that he told me his raw eel to do pre sauce. He also ordered us with clay sauce, right? So it is part of the previous Sharia. But it's also established for us. This is number one, of course, this is an evidence it's a source of law for us. The next one is that which is established is not part of our Shediac. So Allah told the previous owner to do it.
And he told us not to do it. And the example of that we gave is making sujood to use of Ra Hassan, it was permissible for them. It's not permissible for our OMA for anybody to make sudo to another person. So this is not an evidence. Then we said the third category is that which they narrated. So somebody says whether it's them, or somebody opens the Old Testament or opens the Torah and they say, the Torah says this.
Data now says this. The New Testament says this doesn't matter. When we look at the shittier are those before us as they come through the Quran and Sunnah can't come through there. So
essence. And then the last one is that which came to us through the shady eye but the Sharia or didn't tell us? Should you do this or should you not do it? It just left it open. And here we take this in our opinion as a source of law, the example we gave, for example, Musa alayhis salam, he paid them off when he got married in the years of service, eight years of service or 10 if you wanted to. So if somebody said isn't permissible, and now we're on for somebody to give their mod as years of service, I'll work for you for a year as my mom. Yes, it's permissible because of
Allah quoting Musa and giving us the story about Musa alayhis salam, even though nothing is clear. In our study, I came and said this is permissible or it's not permissible.
Okay, so now we get into today's discussions, the first
source of law we'll look at today is El masa. Yes.
This one
because this is the majority of scholars. I mean, that's that's a indication right there. It's not because the majority of scholars say this.
But even he said that
we don't
know.
We're here as the majority of
physicians, like it is to say that there is always
so most of the harm
is the public benefits. And this is the last really, of the Adela. The last of our evidences. What do I mean by it's the last I mean, a 40. Looks to most of the HA, the last thing, right?
And so when do we look to the master? One, we've already looked to the Quran, to the sunnah to the AST, which now.
And in reality, most of the heart itself is a form of class.
It's a form of class and that's considered the weakest of the forms of the s.
And so you're you're combining the Assam. What is the US? The original case? The Ferrara the new case?
By means of masa by means of benefit.
So we say there's different forms of Masilela in our Shediac. The first form is that which the city says
testifies to its regard, I testifies that this is something that should be regarded.
For instance, the hijab of a woman, the Sharia has the benefits, correct? There's a benefit public benefit to wearing hijab. The Shetty I mentioned, this speaks about the Quran mentions it refers to it. So this is a Muslim. It's a benefit. That the Sharia has testified is important, testified we should regard it. So we act upon this type of Messiah, that the Sharia told us we should act upon.
The next type is the benefit that the Sharia testified to invalidate. The Sharia said we should invalidate this. And an example here.
Humble, selling COMM For example. Someone might say there is a benefit in selling alcohol. We make a lot of money. If our country sells alcohol, we would stimulate the economy we would make a lot of money.
Is there a benefit in what they're saying? Yes, money. There's a benefit in getting money and having more money for sure. But the shitty I said this is an invalid Malachite it's an invalid benefit. Allah subhanaw taala says
the management cathedral women effort really nests in humble in alcohol there is benefit for people there is Manetho there's benefit and there's also much evil. So there should he testifies knows that there is a benefit here and testifies that it is invalid. And this type of most of the how we don't act according to
the third type is that which the shitty eye does not regard or invalidate, the Sharia does not tell us to do it does not tell us not to do it. And this is what is called and most of the animals
which is the unattested must know how the unattested benefit. Why is it unattested there's nothing in the Shetty out telling us to do it. Nothing in this show. They are telling us not to do it.
An example of this is there's a stop sign when you're driving. There's a stop sign. Right did this shady? I say you must put stop
have signs on the road? No, it didn't say that. Right? Did it tell us it's not proper to put stop signs in the road? No, it did not say that. Right. So, the city are neither acknowledged nor do they invalidate the muscle of the benefit.
And this type of muscle the hard there are different needs different levels sorry. The first level is above or below react, which are necessities.
And this is which when if this benefit is missed, if we don't get this benefit this floodwater, it will result in a loss of life or it will result in a loss of bodily function or a significant significant harm will be related to it.
So this is what the necessities are. And these necessities are built off of these five different categories, the first of which have the deen so protecting our religion and the Shediac came in many many different rulings to show us that protecting our deen is of the utmost importance. The second is
enough's protecting the sole preservation of life. And the shitty I came with much to protect life like this loss. Why is there punishment of death for a murder and the SNAM to protect life?
The next is heftiness. The protection of lineage family and lineage and share the ark came to protect this like Xena. Why is in a haram? One of the reasons to protect the lineage to protect the family? Hopefully without the protection of the intellects, the shitty out forbade Hummer, for example, to protect and preserve our intellect. And the final 150 ml.
Protecting wealth Shediac came to protect wealth. An example why do we cut the hand off the thief? Why is the thief punished for stealing to protect the wealth.
So this is Ebola yet. The next one al Hajj alhaja,
which is the needs. So this is less than verdura.
And this is where if you lose it, it would cause hardship and difficulty for people.
It would cause hardship and difficulty.
I'll give you one example.
Let's say not being able to eat or drink is that in necessity,
but All right, we will die without it without severe bodily harm if we don't eat and drink. So that's a thorough. Now if somebody says you can eat and drink but you can't eat meat, there's no meats.
They can't eat any meat. That would be not able Rudra you can live without meat. You can survive without it. You can get your protein from something else. But it's a hijra, it's a need that people have. It's hard not to eat any meats. Some people do it. I don't know why it's difficult to do to not eat meats.
And so this is a hydra you will survive without it, but it's hardship in your life. And then there's taxi nuts, which are adornment, which is like eating ice cream.
It's not a necessity. It's not even a need. But it's nice. It's a luxury makes people feel good.
So that's one example and we got all three of them.
One last point about masala just because this is popular, is that for some people, most of the has become the beginning and the end of REITs. And there's you know, people who talk about, you know, he had an mocassins like no cost to the city.
The objectives of Sharia, and in general,
you know, the first person to talk about mocassin was a man of shock to me. But he wrote it as like a chapter in his book or a small portion of the book. It's weird and strange and not right to take a small chapter of the book and you make all of your film. So they begin in the end the whole issue, looking almost the heart they don't want to look at anything else. Right? And for the scholar, this is the last thing you look at. You look at the Quran and the Sunnah you're no Seuss. You look at what the amount of the scholars is, you look at what the Sahaba have said, right? You look at PS you look at all of these things before you come to masala Ha, right. And so, like, I'll give you an
example. If someone divorces their wife, and they say plot up three times in one sitting,
is that one product or is that three?
Right so the template of all for me that I have is that it's three, by the way. Right and they build this off of the poll of some of the sahaba. Anyways, my point is they will look at this issue
For example,
and they will say
it's in the benefits of the family
that it counts only as one, not as three. And Islam came to protect the family, therefore it should count as one, not three.
The problem with this is that
you didn't look at the Quran or the Sunnah with the Sahaba said, or anything, you just looked at Messiah, you don't look at anything else. Right? And this is not how scholars come to their conclusions. So this is not even about the conclusion. This is about how they got to the conclusion, they got to the conclusion just by looking at Mr. Hyde, nothing else. And a scholar doesn't build a 50 argument like that. You build the 50 argument by looking at the muscles and looking at what the Sahaba have said, looking at looking at all these things we've been studying, right? And then yes, you can look at if there's nothing in the muscles if there's nothing in the Quran and Sunnah. And
what the Sahaba have said is different upon that may be okay, we can look to the Messiah, right? We're not saying we don't look at it at all. But this is a small portion of film. We don't make it the beginning and the end of film. And some people in today's day and age have done this.
So we should be aware of this, because in the history of Islam until maybe the last 100 years, no one looked at look like this. It's only now. And once you do this, it really degrades the value of the Quran and Sunnah. Because in the end, it's like we don't even need to look at it all we need to look at masala. And, you know, even when you want to look at muscle, what you consider to be a monster, how I consider to be, is going to be different. So there's issues of this.
Another like similar filthy question, somebody says, if somebody divorces their wife while he is drunk, is it a divorce or not? This is a funny laugh between the scholars on this issue. The person looks at and says, Well, you know, the muster has to keep the family together. So it's not. Again, it's not the right way. It's not the right methodology of making an opinion, right, we have to look at more than just most law.
Okay, the next type of evidence is the Son Son
really comes from the word like making something happen making something beautiful. This is the preference, what the judge what the witch dad sees as being good.
Now, what is the definition of his son, because sometimes you will hear this method takes us this and this method does not this method accepts it, these scholars reject it. And what happens sometimes in fifth and annual soil as well, is sometimes one group of scholars defines it one way, gives it one definition, and this group of scholars gives it a different definition. So then we say these guys reject this sound, and these guys accept it. But in reality, they're talking about two different things. Right? In reality, what they're talking about is one definition. He's talking about a different definition. Right? So even when we look at the terms, we have to know, what is the
what does he mean by this word? Right. And so I wanted to break this down, by definition, because if we just say it's the axon, and this is what these scholars saying this scholars get doesn't, you fall into
confusion? So the first definition that's put forward is abandoning the ruling of one masala of one issue
for another ruling, due to a specific evidence.
Right, so we're judging in an issue away from its original ruling, due to a specific evidence, an example here.
Sometimes, you know, there's a sale contract.
And the contract itself is fine.
But in the wording, there's some subtlety
that it may lead to interest. The wording is very subtle, the wording is a bit strange, where it could lead to interest. So the scholar comes and says, in general, this contract is valid. But
it would, but not when there is hidden interest. And therefore, this is haram, because it seems like it's going to lead to interest. So he says, originally, I acknowledge originally this contract is fine, but because this wording seems like it's going to lead to something wrong. In this specific situation. I will say It's haram. You understand? So we know what the original ruling is. It's halal, but he looks at this specific situation. He says, You know what I'm gonna say this haram. And this nobody of the scholars disagrees with this. And that was that he says everybody agrees with this. There's no disagreement on this.
The next type is an evidence
That is they define it as evidence that is in the mind of them which to heads.
And he doesn't know how to express it.
So you tell him, what is the ruling on this issue? He says It's haram or he says it's halal. And you say why? Right or another scholar, somebody of knowledge asks him Why, of course, the layperson sometimes can't really ask. Another scholar tells him why he says, I can't really explain it. But
it's haram or it's kind of
this is not an evidence and remember his daddy and Mustafa, he says that, if somebody reaches this ability, this level of inability, where they're not able to express the knowledge that they're thinking about, he said that they're not knowledgeable to begin with. If they can't really express it, then it's not knowledge. So none of the scholars will accept it. There is a small Asterix here. Small Asterix
were some of the scholars said in a small way, we can accept this a little bit as an evidence, why?
Number one, they said,
the hadith of our Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, that the sin is that which causes hesitancy in your heart, have the figures, another Hadith where the prophet says, it's tough to call back seek the fatwa of your heart, they're saying a person of knowledge, who has something in their heart says this is wrong. It can be in this very, very small way. It could be something we look at, we look to, right. And this makes sense if a great scholar like even TV or someone says, you know, there's something in my heart against this, and he can't really verbalize it, we should at least like, hear them out. You understand, like, to some level.
Likewise, the scholars mentioned,
you know, animal, Hadith, Andalusia, Hill Kahana. Freeze, the scholars say that the knowledge of of Hadith with a layperson and ignorant person, it's like, magic or fortune telling, right? He says, why? You'll go to a scholar of Hadith, you'll say this hadith his body, you'll say, why is it why? And he's like, I can't explain it to you, because there's so much to explain. You're not a person of knowledge. I can't, I can't even begin to explain it to you. Right. So they said there's some truth to that with the layperson. But in general, somebody says, a scholar says, you know, this is my opinion, but I can't, I can't explain it. In general, this is not an evidence.
The final category
is that which then which Ted sees as better rationally. So then, which said using his logic and rational devices, he says, I don't have evidence from the Quran and Sunnah class and in Japan or anything like that. But I think this is more logical.
This is not an evidence because logic alone, using logic by itself, of course, you know, yes, is a form of logic, etc. But you're using the Quran and Sunnah. And our Gnosis with that logic by itself is not an evidence.
Okay, the next category is this hub, is this hub is the presumption of continuity. And its definition
is that you're holding on to a rational or illegal evidence a showery evidence that is not
apparently transmitted,
has not been apparently transmitted.
So
what does this mean?
For example,
why is it permissible for me to use? You know, this plastic thing over here?
Why is it permissible for me to use it? We say the principle and all things is permissibility. Right? So in principle, it's permissible to use something unless there's evidence that it's not permissible.
This is a form of estas Hab.
So what are the categories of this this have three categories. The first one is
what we call pursuit, presuming the original status of innocence.
I am a tech lead, for example. So the principle that there is no tech leaf, there is no meaning principally, we presume that the person is not commanded or prohibited from doing something.
We assume you are not responsible. Right? Until there's evidence that says that you are
right. So the we wouldn't if there was nothing in the Quran and Sunnah about praying five times a day. Would we assume you're supposed to pray five times a day? No. So we say the assumption the starting point is we don't assume you're you're commanded or prohibited from doing anything until we see evidence of it, right.
So in principle, eating is permissible to print
One thing is that it's permissible the principle of all things, its permissibility until there's evidence that it's not.
The second type is the presumption based on established evidence. So an example here, common one
you made will do.
And then you come to pray. And then before your prayer, you're like, Wait, did I break my will do or not? I don't know. Did I break it? Did I not break it?
So we say, what is the established evidence? Between these two things?
What's established?
We've established you made will do you are 100%, certain you made will do. You're not sure that you break your will or not. So we presume from the established evidence, we continue, assume that you're you still have your will.
Right? And the opposite like if this person's I know for sure I went to the washroom.
I don't know if I made will do after. Right. So you go with what's established establishes? You don't have your
and this is clear when we study followed.
But this is in a way it's established here, no sweat as well. The third type,
and this is not an evidence is this this have an edge amount of fee mahalanobis out so when the person tries to presume edge math in a place of disagreement. So an example.
We brought up the issue already, if a person is drunk, and he divorces his wife, is the divorce does the divorce take place or not?
So
what if somebody says this brother, he got drunk and he divorced his wife? And let's say I take the opinion that it's a divorce, you take the opinion that it's not a divorce.
And then you say, look, both of us agree. When he made his neck, His neck was valid. Was a yes, we both agreed. So we have a Jamal, right? Yes, there's a Jamara that the kneecap was valid. And now there's disagreements about whether he made Talaq whether he divorced. So the person says, Let's presume from the HMR, we continue,
we say no, here, this is not this is not valid. Why?
Because the GMAT only exists. When there's agreement once there's an issue of disagreements, there's no agenda anymore, right. So, this evidence is not a form of evidence, this argument
Okay, some examples.
It is permissible to issue prepaid credit cards and to use them so long as it does not include the conditions of Riba. This is because the principle on all things is permissibility. So is this muscle huh? Or is the sun or is this hub?
This this hub because the principle of all things is permissibility.
Okay, it is permissible to use loudspeakers and microphones for Joomla and for it to footpath and reciting and suada and there is nothing that prohibits this in the Sharia rather, it is necessary to use the large Miss masajid due to what it achieves in the show that really benefits is this Mr. Harris, this is this hand is this?
Or is this hump? Which one?
This is muscle.
Okay, more than 120 years ago, some federal councils allowed that if specialists doctors found that a fetus would be born with significant deformities, or mental incapacity, which was considered to be beyond the cure, or management of their medicine, that abortion would be permissible should the parents seek it? I'm not talking about the validity of this argument. This is a reality though. Some people made this photo now did they make this photo out of mustard ha. Or is the sun or is this fad?
This is sad. It's hard to find examples of mistakes and this is a form of assessment so they're preferring this they're leaving the original ruling which is that abortion is haram for a specific ruling in a specific instance
it doesn't
come
because there's
no way it's almost the height. I understand.
Yeah.
This is more closely it's because what they're doing is the scholar is leaving the original ruling.
For a specific evidence and the specific evidence here is the the the deformity, the baby is going to be worn out
In a way it is mostly hard because you're gonna say there's hardship difficult hardship on the parents and this is making use for the parents etc. So it's not it's not wrong but
okay
instituting laws for driving and using roads to save lives is this A must haha that is my Tavira attested to mullewa invalidated or more set up and attested
yes see unattested the shitty I didn't talk about it nor did invalidate permanent interest to stimulate the economy a b or c
b be invalid that should yeah told us that was haram
okay in joining good and forbidding evil to spread stop the spread of evil deeds
This is the tested so the honest broker okay okay.
So now we finished all of the dealer and the last of all the categories we talked about from the very beginning.
We spoke about what are the four categories of also
the again the rulings spoke about how commodity content leafy we spoke about evidences the Adela we just finished on
the Delilah what we infer from the evidence and now then which ties right
so this is the discussion on which the head
and HD heads.
So,
the McHale lift the one who was responsible?
All human beings basically are two types. Either they are in which two heads, or they are a mullet. Either they are a person of HD heads, or they are a person who's following someone who's making HD have.
Are there other categories?
In a way you can say yes.
But in reality, there are two categories. And within these categories are different levels. So there can be someone who is amo Khalid
he's a follower. But he has studied Islam.
And he has a lot of knowledge about the Quran and Sunnah.
And he is able to understand the words of the scholars.
But he can't make a symbolic, he can't deduce rulings. He's short of this. So is he an Mukalla? During which that he's a mocha lead, but he's maybe the best of those who are doing it. And then there's a person who knows nothing, right? doesn't know anything, hasn't read much Quran or so nothing. Right and, and he's a mocha lead but he knows very little. And likewise, of the people of Chad, there are those who are of the greatest thing which ties in with luck, which we're going to talk about and those who know less but are still people of HD heads.
So, the Medusa head is too tight. There is the Medusa head that is mutlak that is unrestricted. And there he had, this is someone who is able to make he had in every aspect of the deen.
So whatever topic category chapter we are speaking about, this person can make HD heads, they have reached that level of knowledge.
And the second type is elements that just II which is a much tied partially.
So he has the capability in the qualifications of HD heads, but he's lacking knowledge in some of vino source. Some of the Quran, sunnah, in particular. So maybe some areas of the Sunnah he knows a lot, and some memorize a lot and some areas he has not memorized that much.
Let's talk about the Majapahit that is Mukluk.
The categories are the conditions of being a mujtahid mutlak are two.
The first is capability, capability.
What we mean here is the ability in fact, their ability to deduce.
And this is not related necessarily to how much the person memorizes. But their ability to think through and understand.
They know all these principles of 50. And more than the principles that we've talked about and the conditions we've talked about. They know all of this, and they have the ability to understand because some people can study everything. And they just don't know how to deduce well, so how does the person know that they have capability? It's through training, they trained with the people of knowledge and they gain this ability.
So the practical aspect, right? The second is knowledge. Now when we say knowledge, what do we mean by knowledge? He has deep knowledge
Liche knowledge of Azulon everything we studied in this class and how to apply it
and knowledge of a noun and look at grammar and the language,
knowledge of
the evidences of the rulings and the establishment of those evidences. So somebody could read in the Quran and the Sunnah and find a hadith, find an area and say I want to apply this AI doesn't know the AI has been abrogated, right? He doesn't know what's been abrogated what's still in effect. So he knows what's been established what's been abrogated, and he knows the strength of the Hadith he gets a hadith he knows the strength of it or not, is it is it hasn't his wife
and as Babineau Zool. Now this is why there is a difference of opinions. Somebody said kid can, can one be a mujtahid.
But when it comes to the knowledge of Hadith, he makes taqlid
so he says, I'm going to, I can give that to us. But I'm going to rely on us on a scholar of Hadith for his rulings on Hadith, so I'm following him and a hadith. I'm not myself, extracting
the greetings of the Hadith. I'm just a blind follower for him and in the Hadith, but for the rest, I'm the one issuing the ruling. Some scholars said this is permissible. Other scholars said no, he has to even be able to
understand the knowledge of Hadith himself
ASVAB in uzun, which is the causes of Revelation, why was something revealed because that has an effect on rulings and differentiating between Jamara and between difference of opinion. So he doesn't claim a gym out where it didn't happen doesn't claim difference of opinion where there is a gym out. So, these are the
conditions of them which had that has multiple now the Munch that that is just a that is partial, he also has to have capability.
Right? He has to have his capabilities capacity understanding was sorted itself understanding the ways to deduce and interpret the, the source the Quran and the Sunnah. He has to know all of this. So he knows knows,
he has trained in us would have felt. But I'll give you an example.
He knows us. And he's trained in this sort of help. But he doesn't know many Hadith in the area of freeing a slave.
So can he give fatwa in relation to giving freeing a slave? Say no, because he needs to have knowledge. Now, let's say he knows also will and He has trained in it.
But
and he has a lot of knowledge when it comes to marriage and divorce. He memorize 1000s of Hadith in this area.
Is it permissible? Now for him in this one area to get fatwa to make it see how do we say yes.
So the metalheads just is a fee. He's a he's a person of knowledge. He has complete knowledge of ozone.
And he has trained in it and He's memorized many Hadith, but he may be and he knows language and grammar and all of this, but he lacks just in the knowledge of delille. So the Quran and Sunnah, particularly the Sunnah in a particular area right.
And this is different than somebody who has half knowledge I have half knowledge of also and have half knowledge of language and have half
this is dangerous the scholars have sayings about this it says
this full physically gifted will at the end, when it should be
done you he said like the half of the a half of a scholar half of a fugly will ruin the body sorry ruin the dean and half of the doctor will ruin your body. Whereas half a doctor gives you the wrong medicine you die right. So the scholars have sayings like this
So likewise, somebody studied masala and they studied lira and he studied hijab, but they didn't study you know
how the Sahaba and they didn't study GMAC and they get fat when
they're not qualified to begin with.
Okay.
Now we get into the last area
which is a tautology incompatibility.
So,
where we have two things that contradicts
now, the first thing to understand, there is no such thing as a contradiction in the Sharia.
Right. There is no such thing as
A real contradiction, a real contradiction in the Sharia. Why do we say that? Because it came from Allah subhanaw taala.
When Ocana Minang delayed Allah He alleged to the left and Kathira Allah says if it came from other than Allah, they would have found many differences, many contradictions. So
there is no true contradiction. However, it may appear in the mind of them which to hit, as there is a contradiction. It may appear to him like there are two A's or two Hadith or an ayah, and a hadith that seem to contradict each other. So what do we do in these scenarios? When there's a contradiction?
We say, if there is a possibility to combine to make Gemorah, so we understand both of them, then we combine them.
If there's a possibility to combine them, we combine them. If there is no possibility to combine them, what do we do?
We look to see if there is Ness, if something has abrogated the other. So we see do we know the dates of these? And there's two Hadith or two verses? Do we know which one came first?
If we know that one of them came first, then the second one abrogates, the first one.
Now, what if we don't know the dates, we have two or Hadith we don't know which one came first.
So now you come into something called a total G, which is weighing the process of weighing or outweighing, which one is weighs more than the other.
So if it's possible to weigh them, then whichever is stronger, we go with and we abandon that which is weaker. Now what if we get to a case where we can't sway them? They both seem like they're the same.
Then here we make tilaka. If we say we don't know we stop, say we don't know Allah. We stopped. So first Gemma, then NUS then Tala G, and then totally
now, what is total G in detail?
We understand combining we understand pneus. But how do we really weigh things? How do we know how to weigh things?
And so total G outweighing or weighing things is putting forth the stronger of two deals? Right, the stronger of two evidences?
How is that done? Either it's done by the form of the evidence or it can be done.
So the form of the evidence
Jensen studied.
So we say HTML first.
Why is it math for somebody might say,
Hey, why are you putting something above the Quran?
There's a few reasons. The first reason is a GMAT cannot be obligated. Right?
It could be a verse in the Quran was abrogated. It couldn't be a hadith was abrogated, cannot be that once the draft is established, it's established forever. GMAT cannot be used cannot be abrogated. Still, somebody might say how can you take something above the Quran? The Quran is the most important.
We say we're not actually taking anything above the Quran.
What we're doing
is we're saying of course the Quran is the strongest.
But what we are doing is we are giving preference amakhala We're giving preference to the understanding of the scholars, all of them, they all all of them agreed, right? And so Jamal, we are giving understand we're giving preference to the understanding of the scholars
to what the Quran says versus what we think the Quran says. This is what I personally think the Quran says, No, we give preference to the scholars in it. So it's not giving preference in reality to the Jamaat itself over the NUS, over the Quran and Sunnah. But it's giving preference to the understanding of the scholars over our understanding of the NUS
and we give preference to the Quran over the Sunnah.
Now let me quiz you. Quick question.
Somebody says you are seeing here you give preference to the Quran over the Sunnah.
The Quran says
that the one who does Zina should be lashed 100 times. And the Sunnah says that the Prophet salallahu alayhi salam
stolen people capital punishment for people who committed Zina.
But you are saying you take the poor and over this
what's the response here?
The last thing is for unmarried people. Why is that important?
If other people
are like wait there
are going to create cases. So
they're different situations.
That's what I'm looking for. Because we're able to combine it. We don't even get to touch it.
Right? Because we already said, the first thing we do is gender combination, can we combine them? So here we see, the prophet only did capital punishment when they were married. And the Quran says Zanni was Zania, which is general, we already talked about, you know, you specify the specific with the general. So we can combine both of these we say the Quran applies when they're unmarried. And what the Prophet did was only when they were married. So since we're able to combine it, there is no time gap to begin with. We accept both of them. Right?
So this is in cases where we can't combine them. And we can't say there's not one of them abrogated the other, right, we're not able to do those things. Now we start looking at some GA, we say which one do we take? Well, if it's in the Quran, we give preference to the Quran over the Sunnah.
And even in the Sunnah we take give precedence to the statement of the Prophet above the action of the Prophet and that above the consent of the prophets lies and the Sunnah over the same of this hobby and stimulus hobby overclass.
We can also make total GIA related to the narrator by means of the narrator so in the chain
in the chain of narration itself. So
one way you can do that is related to the narrator.
If there's two Hadith one of them is narrated by
one of them has many narrators, I will read an array that we thought of narrated, were either narrated, and etc. Except said all these people narrated and the other one, only one person narrated it. So which one are we going to take the one that has more than the other? Okay, what if they both have an equal number of narrators,
but one of them is more dependable.
So both of them are dependable here. Right? Both of them are trustworthy, both of them are dependable. But maybe one of them is even more, their knowledge level is higher. They were never known at any point in their life to You know, lose their senses or losing their mind or something like that. Whatever. If one of them is more dependable than the other, we take the one that's more dependable. And then we take also the one that is closer and narration
than the other.
So what do we mean here?
I was going to use this in the quiz I think.
I can't think of another example.
More Natalie along with Anna says, I married the Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam, and he was in a state of Hallahan he was not in a state of Iran.
Even Ambassador the Allahu unseres the prophets of Allah, Allah married Maimunah and he was in a state of Iran
contradicts contradiction between the two. Which one would we take?
All right, Mona why?
She's the one who got married. And I'm best as a young at this time, right? So he probably heard from someone else she's there she obviously is a more closer to the situation than even I'm, that's okay, also related to the chain.
So we take the most that over the motor cell, we spoke about how do you find yourself before so when there's a missing? So for instance, the tablet Lee might narrate that the Prophet said, we know the tabular, I never met the profit. But typically will still take the Morrison Hadith, right. But if there's a Muslim that hadith, what is a Muslim Hadith? It's one that is supported. So
what is a Muslim Hadith? For example, if someone
let's say we, you were studying for me for a couple of years, and you inherited something from me, and I narrate something from my teacher, and I studied with him for 234 years, and he inherited from his teacher, and he studied with that teacher for three, four or five years, whatever, etc, etc. It goes like that.
Each of these narrations are strongly supported, right? Because you are with me for many years, you heard me say many things. You heard me say them over and over and over again, right? I heard it from my teacher and he I heard many, many things from him over and over and over again. So these are supported chains. Sometimes there's a chain of narration where this person marries from that person, you're like, Wait, when did they meet? This guy lived here? This guy lived there and you're trying to figure out did they meet at Hajj? Was there some situation where they met? Right? So that's not
On a mustard necessarily, this is a Muslim Hadith strongly sourced. So we take the Muslim over the Morson
and early on in us and what is it doesn't mean I didn't know how to translate it above or below. So this is, for example,
you have a hadith that Imam Malik narrates, from Napa from urban aroma from the Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam, or Zainul RBD narrates from his father and Hussein or the hola Juan, from his father earlier the Allah one from the prophets, Allah lives. These are very short chains. There's only three people in them, right three four people versus another Hadith that nine chains 10 Chain 10 chains of people narrating from each other. So the shorter one over the longer one basically, the one that is shorter is the one that we would prefer over the other. And then what's the two shifts Narrator This means what else?
Hottie Muslim, right? So you have the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim and you ever had even Timothy, and this one is saya and this one is saya we still get preference we get preference from Cardenas.
But again, these are scenarios where there's a disagreement, there's a contradiction, and we can't combine them. We can't figure out if one of them abrogated the other. So now we're trying to outweigh one over the other. So this is only in these scenarios.
Okay.
So the past didn't take longer than normal. Just a few more, just a few examples and then inshallah we'll go from there.
So here one Hadith of oh sorry, the familiar the Allahu Allah He said, If you hear them, then then say what he says. Like repeat after him.
Then there's a hadith of honorable Ababa the Allahu Allah where he says when you hear him say hi yadda yadda when you hear him say hi, yada, and then you say Hola. Hola. Hola Portela. So what do we do here? Can we make Gemma to make an S? G? Or do we just stop?
Jen, how are we making Gemma here?
Exactly, exactly. We are done. We have the costs
or would this be much more?
Yes.
Okay. Next one. If not massively alone, we're unsaid that when the prophets of Allah Islam enter into the Kaaba, he made dua on all sides of it, but he did not perform Salah until he came out. When he came out to pray to it, okay, I was facing the Kaaba, and he said, This is the fibula.
Another Hadith from Omar said I saw the messenger of allah sallallahu. I didn't send them entering the Kaaba and who some of us aid Vidal or Samantha will follow her along with him, but none entered with along with him. Then the door was closed for them from within.
So they entered all of them entered, nobody entered with them. Okay. Seminars they'd be done with man with vodka in the profit schools. Then the door was closed for them from within. Abdullah Ahmad said to be that and Samantha told me and informed me that Allah's Messenger prayed in the interior of the carrabba between the two Yemeni pillars. Now do we make Jim or Ness return to ge? Or tilaka?
What's that?
One Hadith says the Prophet prayed inside the cabinet. The other Hadees said he did he didn't put inside the cabinet.
So you can't make Gemma. Either he did, or he did it. You can't make nests because it's an event. Remember, we talked about NASA. NASA can only be about prohibitions or commandments. It can't be about an event that took place.
So we have to do Taraji between the two of them. And which one are you going to give?
You're gonna give the first one
the first one he's on brain.
He said he prayed. He didn't say he saw the
second one why?
Because
we
have our wisdom. And
and I'm loving. It almost said Bilal told me that the prophets of Allah Islam prayed in the interior of the camera. So this is really a hadith that goes to be loyal and automatic and right.
And who were closer to the situation even our best or be that
they were actually there.
Right
No, he never said
he just said the Prophet did this when he went there. But he must have been relating when he heard
we make torture. Okay
supposed to do this
Yes.
You did this? Yes. Because he's adding extra little
sock This is one of the principles
Okay, so this is a Hadith was Robbins of one or the Allah and she said the Prophet said if any of the men touch their private part, let them perform will do.
And another Hadith from Falck or Hanafi, he said that I heard the prophets of Allah is going to be asked about touching the private part and he said that does not require will do, because that is part of you. What are the minimum? Okay,
so
what do we do here?
Yes?
Away,
Jim.
Went away
okay, so Gemini can be correct. Look, we're not trying to solve the 50 questions right now, right, there's not a fifth pass. We're trying to understand how the scholars think through these issues, right? So you could make an argument for all of these? You can. So some of the scholars make jam out between them. How do they make jam?
Some of them will say, it's one of the Prophet said, Let him make will do. He meant to stand up is preferred Sneden. It's good to do, but not that it's fun. Right? And the second one is when he's talking about 40 law. Others said the Prophet is differentiating between touching your private parts with desire versus not touching it with desire.
So this is a way of combining them right?
Some didn't accept this some sadness. How did they do nest?
So one of the people who narrate the first Hadith
in a different wording is Abu Huraira, the long line
and Paul
L. Hanafi. spoke to the Prophet while he was building the message it comes in a different Hadith speaking to the Prophet while the prophet is building the messenger. So they said the Prophet built the masjid early after the Hijra. Abu Huraira became Muslim, in the seventh year of hedgerows towards the end of the prophets like so they say, therefore, that one comes after this and they do this.
But then other scholars disagree with them. And they say the Prophet built the masjid twice, the first time when he arrived after hijra, and the second time to expand it.
So they say how do you know which time came to the Prophet while he's building the rest of the first time or the second time? Because it you don't know which which time you came and you can't say this one came before the other.
And then ontology.
The problem ontology is good Buhari. Radi Allahu Rahim Allah Allah says the hadith of Basra is the most authentic in this chapter.
And then Evelyn Madani, another great scholar, Hadith, he says the hadith is the most authentic in this chapter.
So you have different opinions here. And they make their strategy this way. But this is just a way to understand how scholars will deal with these contradictions, or what we see as contradictions.
We covered this one.
So if an ibis has made the promise to send a married man woman while she's in a state of Iran, this recording will haughty and Muslim and may move to an area that prophesied is in a marriage or while he was headed out of ROM and I forgot to write with this as recorded in Muslim.
So which one we said to God? Because Maimunah
was there.
Some people try to combine this. They tried to make Gemma, how do they make Jim? They say,
Abraham that meant the Prophet was in the Haram.
Not in a state of Iran.
But then other people respond and say nobody speaks like this in the language, except that they specify if they meant that, and so
it doesn't make too much sense, but this is an opinion that some have, of course, Maimunah was there if not best was not so we take the opinion of Maimunah
Like you said, and most of its more content on NFV, as well, right? So
in the mountain was the other thing. So we say that the one who is establishing something, stating that something happened is typically given preference over the one who's not. Because they are bringing in extra knowledge, they're saying something happened, they wouldn't say something happened unless they know something happened or they heard something up. So these are different principles as well like when you get deeper, I bought making a gap between two things, but this is just you know, exercise inshallah first understand this process, and how to go through things.
So that's all that we have for today. Any any questions anybody has?
Clear inshallah. So this is the last class and next Sunday, we won't do anything, to give you guys time, Inshallah, to review everything. And then the Sunday after that, which I think is January 1.
should realize holiday. I don't know if we really want to do it.
But then I guess you guys are off work as well as maybe it's a good day to do it.
Yes.
You didn't understand this one.
If you're weighing dozens.
This one.
So if it's possible, we take what's stronger. Now, how do we derive what's stronger? This this whole struggle slide, right? If it's not possible, for example,
you know, you come here.
You say it's two Hadith. So they're both sunnah. And they're both co Li, they will statements of the Prophet. So they're equal, they're equal. And you come here, and they say they have the same number of narrators. And all the narrators are equally dependable. And none of them is closer than the other. And both of Hadith are more self worth or whatever. And both them have the same length of chain. And both of them are narrated Bukhari and Muslim. What do you do, right? So that that point you make talk, if you say, I don't know, because everything seems equal to you. But this whole idea is when you have two things that are against each other? What do we do to figure out which one
weighs more than the other? Which one's heavier than the other? Once we figure that out, then we take the one that we think is more likely than the other one.
So in the mountains, so is there something in the text of the Hadith that maybe doesn't make sense, one of them makes more sense than the other. One of the contradicts something in the Quran and Sunnah. Something like that. This is very rare, something like that would have were you looking at methods, one of them strong another? Yeah. So this is the medicine means that not the chain of narration is not the narrator themselves. But what's actually being said, right, in the dialect, and the inferences which one inferences is stronger. Now, this is everything we talked about when we talk about the data inferences, all that.
But is there an inference is stronger than the other inference.
And then be able to catch something that is not related to those see of these two Hadith that are contradictory, we looked at something else, maybe there's another thing we can look to, that can give us context.
So just as we began the course, important that we remind ourselves about the class, that whatever we're learning, learning for the sake of Allah cansado, we're learning with sincerity.
Yes.
So if we were to do a class on FIP, then we're taking a book of FIP and we're going through all the rulings. So what is permissible what's haram? So if we took for instance, the book of kohara and the book of SWAT and all the rulings related to
color it is
legal Maxim so things that we take out of all the rulings of Islam that are kind of like principles kind of like was similar to this one but a little bit different.
But and it will be a shorter course I think it wouldn't be too long.
Maybe like five six classes.
I think.
First time
I think because you want to you want to cover the whole book, start from the beginning till the end.
Takes a long time.
That's why I think if I would do it, I would make different courses. So one course would be Babylon and Sudan. The next course would be
You know whatever they can do you had something like that and then next course
so yeah, just like I said, you know, reflect on our sincerity and also think Allah subhanaw taala because the prophets Allah Allah is in them said that whoever Allah loves, He allows them to learn their religion so anytime Allah azza wa jal gives you the opportunity to learn his Deen This is a sign of the love of Allah subhanaw taala and we should respond with hamdu thankfulness to Allah subhanaw taala he gave us the opportunity so just as we begin the class want to end on the same notes and ask Allah subhanaw taala to accept from all of us all of our efforts and trying to learn his deen and to make it a means to put it on our skill of good deeds on the day of judgment in the
means of our entrance into into Jana I mean,
so inshallah we can end here and inshallah in two weeks we'll we'll meet for the exam be in the political arena though some flooding we got some stuff through in order for him so I want to