Principles Of Fiqh Part 10

share this pageShare Page
Jamal Zarabozo

Channel: Jamal Zarabozo

Series:

Topics: Fiqh

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

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


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

But

00:00:05--> 00:00:10

first, I should apologize for keeping you so late less than stellar we must say that

00:00:15--> 00:00:17

we left off last time

00:00:18--> 00:00:26

when it comes for which one takes precedence and the city when we talk about the sources of the Sharia always so far we've been writing Quran

00:00:36--> 00:00:41

and we've been kind of playing sort of order there. So for no one has objected to it,

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

is you're not being consensus again, I'm guessing analogy.

00:00:48--> 00:00:51

So last time, we started to discuss actually whether or not

00:00:54--> 00:00:59

the case where the fraud takes precedence over the summoner. Which is a shot to be

00:01:01--> 00:01:01

butthead.

00:01:03--> 00:01:06

Well, whether or not the Quran and Sunnah are actually equal

00:01:11--> 00:01:14

or whether or not suddenly ethics presidents prime.

00:01:15--> 00:01:18

And then we had a new that have introduced

00:01:20--> 00:01:22

last last meeting.

00:01:23--> 00:01:35

But I think we get through this side over here, right? What were the arguments for seeing the brawn and people less than when I asked you, what are the evidence for it, and you're very slow and giving you some?

00:01:37--> 00:01:40

some evidence. So what is evidence is a branch of take precedence?

00:01:48--> 00:01:50

They can come late because his office is so far away.

00:02:03--> 00:02:07

Which means definitively confirmed or

00:02:16--> 00:02:17

what else?

00:02:22--> 00:02:23

No, you're the one who said this.

00:02:26--> 00:02:27

Okay, we'll get to that.

00:02:28--> 00:02:29

This is for those who weren't there.

00:02:32--> 00:02:33

yet.

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

What else?

00:03:05--> 00:03:07

Is the word of Allah?

00:03:09--> 00:03:11

Any? Well,

00:03:14--> 00:03:16

the revelation of Allah, okay, it's

00:03:18--> 00:03:19

the position of the center.

00:03:28--> 00:03:30

And the argument is that the,

00:03:32--> 00:03:36

the source of the ATO should take precedence over

00:03:51--> 00:03:52

okay.

00:03:54--> 00:03:57

Just because the Quran is mentioned first between men.

00:03:59--> 00:04:03

This is not proof necessarily that the Quran takes precedence. But we'll put in

00:04:07--> 00:04:13

the book in other words in the Quran, Allah subhana wa tada mentioned the book before the hekman, or our

00:04:15--> 00:04:17

wisdom, which we didn't actually need

00:04:22--> 00:04:23

anything else?

00:04:25--> 00:04:33

Then we said, This, of course, is being a miracle. This has nothing to do with it being because even if it wasn't a miracle, and he still would

00:04:34--> 00:04:40

still be an authority, and also the fact that it's used in prayer has nothing to do with it being

00:04:45--> 00:04:46

the others, okay.

00:04:50--> 00:04:52

Thanks. So, let's jump over here.

00:04:55--> 00:04:59

What we're trying to prove that the the

00:05:00--> 00:05:04

On takes precedence over the soon as the hood as an authority in law.

00:05:05--> 00:05:08

The fact that it is a miracle has no

00:05:09--> 00:05:12

has nothing to do with whether or not it should be a journal.

00:05:14--> 00:05:16

Even if it wasn't a miracle

00:05:18--> 00:05:23

and the fact that is the fact that is that it is a miracle does not increase its value.

00:05:28--> 00:05:37

You mean it's something that used in prayer takes precedence over something not using the prayers, the hoods as authority in Islamic law? Okay, what what's your proof for that

00:05:49--> 00:05:49

type of work.

00:05:56--> 00:06:01

Also, the fact that this reverse citation is that worship has nothing to do with the fact that it's hugging.

00:06:04--> 00:06:05

So, those actually irrelevant

00:06:08--> 00:06:13

was the representative of this man has is not here. So we will leave that for now. What about kids?

00:06:18--> 00:06:18

Number one

00:06:20--> 00:06:21

cannot really understand

00:06:23--> 00:06:25

wrong without reference to this

00:06:29--> 00:06:29

without

00:06:31--> 00:06:31

reference,

00:06:33--> 00:06:34

we get many examples of that.

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

That was last time we gave examples of it

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

without

00:06:49--> 00:06:50

examples of that, you

00:06:53--> 00:06:54

know,

00:06:55--> 00:06:57

what's the book that as soon as the period

00:07:00--> 00:07:01

yeah that would be okay.

00:07:03--> 00:07:04

Can you cannot understand the parameter

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

that was the second one.

00:07:10--> 00:07:17

Yeah, as part of understanding how to fly with not to fly and it was all of that the facts of the process and all that.

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

But

00:07:22--> 00:07:25

people were just interested in this side over here.

00:07:30--> 00:07:31

You can just about this one.

00:07:38--> 00:07:45

We said that we cannot we have no way of knowing even what is the Quran is without except through this process

00:07:58--> 00:07:58

by the

00:08:00--> 00:08:05

listener, in other words, this is the Prophet proposes that these words are part of the Quran

00:08:07--> 00:08:11

so it is the sooner that establishes the plan without assume that you won't even know what the Quran

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

What do you mean?

00:08:18--> 00:08:22

I should hope so. Because these are arguments that the sooner is superior to

00:08:23--> 00:08:25

those arguments that the Quran is superior.

00:08:29--> 00:08:30

Yes, of course.

00:08:37--> 00:08:42

You know, they could all be they could all be true, but some are stronger than others. You

00:08:46--> 00:08:52

know, what is it similar to this argument down here? As I said, let them if you accept this argument, then you have to emphasize

00:08:53--> 00:09:02

Danny if you're saying that the Quran is and therefore takes precedence over and it's something that is secondary to it, well here we're saying that it is the words of the prophets of

00:09:10--> 00:09:25

Allah, what I'm saying is that you cannot know what the Quran is except by the publisher cillum saying that this is the Quran okay. So therefore, his statements are actually the source of the Quran and therefore, the source should take precedence over the

00:09:27--> 00:09:29

five points that you cannot use as an argument.

00:09:33--> 00:09:33

Because

00:09:38--> 00:09:40

if I give you something, okay.

00:09:51--> 00:09:55

Any here if we want to say for example, that the client is superior to the seminar?

00:09:56--> 00:09:59

Okay. My answer to that is how can you say the Koran is superior

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

To listen, when there's no way to know even what the Quran is, except by looking by looking through the words.

00:10:09--> 00:10:17

No, no, no, that's different. This means that we cannot understand the Quran. This is saying we don't even know what the Quran is. This is saying we can't understand

00:10:25--> 00:10:26

takes precedence over.

00:10:30--> 00:10:34

I think it can be used in the same way that this one can be. And if you don't like it,

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

go

00:10:39--> 00:10:41

get us something else. No,

00:10:42--> 00:10:42

no, no.

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

Yes. That's the first point here. In fact, the third point here is actually this the Sumner

00:11:01--> 00:11:03

rules over the clock.

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

Put those in.

00:11:09--> 00:11:23

What I mean by that this is very similar to the first one. Is it a suppose that denim, for example, as a general statement in the Quran, and the Quran says No, that doesn't mean it's general it's actually specific. We apply this in, but actually the rules over the Quran.

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

Yes.

00:11:31--> 00:11:33

Yeah, but the point is that history

00:11:35--> 00:11:49

determines whether or not to be applied upon. If the father says sit him said this verse likely definitely gave less than you were here last time. Okay. For example, the Prophet says, Adam said the verse in the Quran about cutting the end of the teeth, he said, it doesn't apply to receive.

00:11:50--> 00:11:53

So we are actually neglecting what the Quran says.

00:11:54--> 00:11:55

Because of what the prophet says.

00:11:59--> 00:12:10

Yeah, this one is just saying that we can't understand that this is actually saying this in the rules over the, this could be an explanation, just further nation, but this is making exceptions to it.

00:12:20--> 00:12:23

For example, the word zone, as we talked about last time,

00:12:24--> 00:12:31

we could not understand it without the proper systems. But here, you think that some of the rules of the fraud, if we just look at them,

00:12:33--> 00:12:38

a body and you're the parent committee, you think No, those aren't to be applied? As they as they look.

00:12:41--> 00:12:42

Okay.

00:13:01--> 00:13:03

Okay, now, let's get to this, this one over here.

00:13:04--> 00:13:04

Okay.

00:13:05--> 00:13:06

It

00:13:11--> 00:13:15

does that argument that it's superior? It comes first. Okay.

00:13:18--> 00:13:19

It has many cases

00:13:21--> 00:13:22

we'll get we'll get system.

00:13:34--> 00:13:37

Okay, so he likes to say that means a superior.

00:13:46--> 00:14:08

Fine. Can you see I don't want people to think this class, but I want you people to give you I don't want you to think that I came up with my conclusion. And I put the final put as many arguments as you want. But as long as they're as long as they're viable. In other words, for example, it is a miracle. I mean, from my point of view, that doesn't mean anything.

00:14:14--> 00:14:23

To know, again, this is understanding the word. This is what actually formed part of the plan. And this is

00:14:24--> 00:14:27

and this tells us what part of the plan may be applied or not applied.

00:14:28--> 00:14:30

With this one shows us something that has more.

00:14:32--> 00:14:34

Okay. Well, let's get to the middle.

00:14:36--> 00:14:38

You have another one. I did. What was

00:14:43--> 00:14:46

the message? No, we got two over here. Yeah, we get

00:14:47--> 00:14:50

right. We did get over here. Those about 950. Remember,

00:14:56--> 00:14:58

you want to be here. I can put the heck of me up

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

They

00:15:05--> 00:15:07

will leave it blank.

00:15:08--> 00:15:09

Okay over here

00:15:11--> 00:15:20

are equal to each other as clinical law. The first one we mentioned is that both of them are equally revelation from Allah.

00:15:35--> 00:15:41

Okay, so just to draw this out a little further, as we said before all that is is

00:15:42--> 00:15:45

okay, he is the ruler of the lawgiver

00:15:46--> 00:15:48

and all authority rests in Allah

00:16:02--> 00:16:04

Okay, what else would be an argument

00:16:05--> 00:16:08

that the two are equal

00:16:12--> 00:16:14

before start shooting

00:16:22--> 00:16:23

let them finish what

00:16:31--> 00:16:32

hey

00:16:35--> 00:16:44

I don't remember anything that I know he says that this is what's up. But in other cases they will accept it for now the same as saying

00:16:54--> 00:16:54

okay

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

well as you know the world doesn't always mean that if you say n, it doesn't mean that the first thing is more important than the second

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

Okay, so both the Koran

00:17:13--> 00:17:15

both the Quran and the Prophet

00:17:20--> 00:17:22

mentioned them together

00:17:25--> 00:17:26

just a minute know

00:17:28--> 00:17:30

what happened feel well.

00:17:34--> 00:17:37

And not department mentioned them together.

00:17:39--> 00:17:40

mention them

00:17:43--> 00:17:51

Wow. Well as opposed to images when it's a topic or lessons as well as what to give or conjunctions, conjunctions.

00:17:53--> 00:17:57

conjunctions so unless you can prove otherwise it has to be taken as conjunction.

00:18:06--> 00:18:06

What

00:18:09--> 00:18:10

are you mean?

00:18:12--> 00:18:19

Yeah, if you can bring me some proof that it means that it doesn't mean conjunction, that means order. Bring me the donate?

00:18:23--> 00:18:27

No, that's what I'm saying that you cannot read it any way you want.

00:18:28--> 00:18:35

You have to read it according to an SLR or what language says it is usually unless you have proof otherwise.

00:18:36--> 00:18:46

network devices, for example, Bill and Frank and George, you don't have the right to read it any way you want that this is ordered. Okay, it is a consumption unless proven otherwise.

00:18:48--> 00:18:49

So if you can bring me some proof

00:18:51--> 00:18:52

otherwise, then

00:18:55--> 00:19:02

the football example that in some places, the politician in the summer instead of well, that what that kind of thing.

00:19:14--> 00:19:14

What about

00:19:16--> 00:19:17

when you want to

00:19:19--> 00:19:21

use a vehicle and

00:19:23--> 00:19:24

what is

00:19:30--> 00:19:36

the difference the difference between them? Well, okay, we'll get to that. We'll get to this. Let's get these right now.

00:19:38--> 00:19:43

The heavy use of wires and the practices of other books. I say that belongs over here.

00:19:52--> 00:19:53

The real meaning of these

00:20:00--> 00:20:04

What's the real meaning of you? Especially? Let's take this one.

00:20:07--> 00:20:08

Heavy. There's some question about

00:20:11--> 00:20:12

this one.

00:20:13--> 00:20:17

There are now someone from the University of petroleum and mineral.

00:20:19--> 00:20:21

Forget the first part which comes before University.

00:20:25--> 00:20:25

He

00:20:27--> 00:20:37

is collecting, for example, the impact of videos of a Booker or about man of alley abroad in Missouri and many other people.

00:20:38--> 00:20:43

If you study for example, abubaker his opinion, if you study Omar's opinion,

00:20:45--> 00:20:54

is it the case that they took the Quran first and then went to the Sunnah as these reports say? Why is it actually the case that they took the Bronson together?

00:20:55--> 00:20:56

For example,

00:20:57--> 00:21:00

the font just says that you cannot marry two sisters at one time.

00:21:01--> 00:21:07

Right? If this was true, what you're saying, I mean, the way they described it

00:21:09--> 00:21:23

as the order priority, the way they just said, it means that I should say, and it just by following upon, this is what the Quran says you should stop rising above average to say that it's okay to marry a woman and her hands it's the same thing.

00:21:24--> 00:21:26

But we know that they did not say that.

00:21:28--> 00:21:30

We know this. This was nothing.

00:21:35--> 00:21:45

Without What I'm saying is that those examples in which the font has something and the poet's has explained it in a different way. They follow all of what the promises innocent.

00:21:47--> 00:21:50

So in other words, in reality, they're taking the products in this together.

00:21:52--> 00:22:05

But if you don't find something in the Quran, the Quran is limited, what are you going to do, you're going to have to turn to the thumbnail which as it was pointed out has more. And that actually what they mean when they said that first they go to the Quran, and then to the semblance of

00:22:07--> 00:22:07

this

00:22:10--> 00:22:13

they don't go to the Quran, before they go through the Quran and Sunnah.

00:22:15--> 00:22:15

This

00:22:17--> 00:22:40

you know, you cannot you cannot show me any example where the Prophet said to them explained the Koran specific way, or added some law to the Quran. And they start simply with the Quran. And if you understand the way we report that said they went to foreign persons, and that's the way it should have been, but it wasn't that way. They took the Quran awesome numbers that exists. These two don't belong here at all.

00:22:42--> 00:22:43

They belong to them.

00:22:47--> 00:22:51

No, I'm saying that his his books show evidence of this.

00:22:57--> 00:22:57

So what else?

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

Well,

00:23:03--> 00:23:04

with respect to this one,

00:23:07--> 00:23:11

they're arguing here, the arguments here, this one will take off

00:23:12--> 00:23:14

because the wall was not proven to be

00:23:16--> 00:23:17

effective.

00:23:18--> 00:23:24

With respect to this one, there's things that the Quran proves the position of the sinner. Therefore, the Quran is

00:23:25--> 00:23:32

the source and it should take precedence over the secondary source. But also the hobbyist prove the position of the Quran.

00:23:33--> 00:23:47

There's many haghaidh there's no it's the publisher Selim said. And if you have to follow the Quran, for example, I left among two things to have a look at. So you can argue the same way that this wouldn't approve the position of the Quran. So for the student as

00:23:48--> 00:23:50

well, the Quran is secondary.

00:23:51--> 00:23:56

And I'm saying that this argument could be used in almost any way. So it's not a stone.

00:23:57--> 00:23:58

So we'll cross that one out.

00:24:07--> 00:24:08

As we said before,

00:24:09--> 00:24:15

is that even if the bonus I sent him did not have a plan? Would it be obligatory enough to follow him?

00:24:16--> 00:24:23

Okay, so that means that the plan actually, and even if the plan didn't exist, the signal would still be hooked in.

00:24:25--> 00:24:32

And therefore the plan is nothing, nothing special from the point of view of what you need. Both of them are revelation equally from Allah.

00:24:33--> 00:24:35

So even without the Quran, you have to follow

00:24:38--> 00:24:38

the Prophet.

00:24:41--> 00:24:51

And he could have other miracles like most of them, had miracles other than a book with a bug in them had a miracle that actually caught his sincerity.

00:24:55--> 00:24:59

No, this is no different question. No, this is the question of how do we know that he is

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

Actually,

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

to tell

00:25:10--> 00:25:11

if we have something

00:25:13--> 00:25:14

and then we have

00:25:19--> 00:25:19

to get.

00:25:22--> 00:25:32

Okay? If you're saying that, then what you might be saying is that because sometimes only the apparent meaning of the Quran contradicts the politicians explanation.

00:25:33--> 00:25:35

So if you say this, you ignore this explanation.

00:25:38--> 00:25:40

That's the danger of this, you

00:25:42--> 00:25:43

know, you're left with one argument,

00:25:44--> 00:25:46

which is I think of my favorites.

00:25:49--> 00:25:52

Let's move over here. Just ignore him.

00:25:53--> 00:25:55

And continue to equals s over here.

00:25:57--> 00:25:57

Given

00:25:59--> 00:25:59

number five,

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

number five,

00:26:02--> 00:26:10

this one little bit, first of all, much of this And as we'll discuss, maybe next week, much of the sooner

00:26:13--> 00:26:24

has come down to us, obviously, both of these are not talking about during the time of the process, and I'm talking about now have come down to us getting throw away, which is also profitable.

00:26:25--> 00:26:27

Not necessarily what was it?

00:26:32--> 00:26:33

Okay.

00:26:34--> 00:26:35

That's not the big argument.

00:26:43--> 00:26:50

definitively confirmed that we know for sure it is correct, it has come down to us property without mistakes.

00:26:51--> 00:26:53

Actually, this is only important.

00:26:54--> 00:26:56

When there's a contradiction between the karasuma

00:26:57--> 00:27:07

an apparent contradiction any, we think there's a contradiction. This might be much awaited, and the sooner the harder, it might be less than one. That's the only time this comes

00:27:08--> 00:27:10

to be important, but at the same time,

00:27:12--> 00:27:15

that is the proportion Okay, more of the sooner

00:27:20--> 00:27:21

more of the sooner

00:27:33--> 00:27:37

with respect to the Quran. And this takes precedence

00:27:42--> 00:27:42

takes precedence

00:27:44--> 00:27:44

over

00:27:47--> 00:27:48

the noun,

00:27:50--> 00:27:51

then a dilemma.

00:27:58--> 00:27:59

Even though it is much less,

00:28:03--> 00:28:15

even though it's okay. Now, what the dilemma What I mean by that is this, or one middle and what this means as an evidence, sometimes the media is not clear.

00:28:16--> 00:28:23

While other times the meaning is specific, it is clear, it's not open to interpretation. This one takes precedence over that one.

00:28:24--> 00:28:27

Even if this one is what the weapon and this has nothing to do with

00:28:36--> 00:28:39

that if something for example, is general as a general statements,

00:28:40--> 00:28:48

you really don't know if it applies to all the cases there might be some exceptions. But if it is a specific statement, we know for sure what it applies to.

00:28:51--> 00:28:53

So therefore, that means that this argument

00:28:56--> 00:28:57

open the doors

00:29:12--> 00:29:25

it was support as greater than you except for the fact any unless you combine it with the fact that and in the Quran, his motto was all of it. And he's going to combine the two arguments. You would say,

00:29:28--> 00:29:30

Okay, this argument isn't very strong.

00:29:32--> 00:29:36

Over here, what are you left with? What are you left with over here?

00:29:42--> 00:29:44

What about over here?

00:29:53--> 00:29:55

Yeah, that's what we went over.

00:29:56--> 00:29:57

Last time.

00:29:58--> 00:29:59

You hear that?

00:30:00--> 00:30:02

So, yeah, we went over that lesson.

00:30:03--> 00:30:04

Well,

00:30:05--> 00:30:09

no one says this. Okay, from the other map, as far as I know, no one.

00:30:12--> 00:30:27

As far as I know, no one does. And I think there are some reasons for not saying that. Basically, that's just what we understand from the branding koulamallah. And it would be too much for the people to say, the simplistic superiority.

00:30:29--> 00:30:38

Someone said to remember when he made this argument that the garage is overpriced. And because they make an exception when you met Matthew, and he wouldn't go that far.

00:30:39--> 00:30:45

As the as the narration says, and he says he could not say that much. He simply said, the sooner he explained.

00:30:46--> 00:30:54

Well, I think the dominant argument is this one, that in fact, that is not the case, as we keep writing put on some nice map, but it

00:30:57--> 00:31:02

is about it. And the overriding the overriding factor is this one.

00:31:03--> 00:31:06

This is the factor that no one can

00:31:07--> 00:31:09

overcome, as the one writer wrote,

00:31:11--> 00:31:13

in his book, as a singer,

00:31:14--> 00:31:32

there is no dispute that the book is distinguished from the center, and superior to superior to it because its wording is a revelation from Allah. citation is a pack of worship, and mankind is not able to produce anything like so he's saying that the Quran is superior to the feminine in some ways,

00:31:33--> 00:31:41

okay, but you continue, but those do not require us to purity between them from the point of view of project or authority improve.

00:31:42--> 00:31:53

Okay, there is so because the hajia of the Quran, the fact that the Quran is authority, is due to being a revelation from Allah, and not because of those things.

00:31:54--> 00:31:56

And it is because of the revelation of a virus why it is.

00:31:58--> 00:32:07

If the book was not a miracle, nor was a citation, the type of worship and the messenger ship was confirmed by other miracles, it would still be necessary to say that the Quran is,

00:32:08--> 00:32:10

as was the same case with the early books.

00:32:11--> 00:32:16

And the sooner the equivalent to the Quran in this respect, in other words, as soon as also revelation from Allah.

00:32:18--> 00:32:25

Therefore, one must say that it does not come after it in authority. And in other words, the Quran and Sunnah have to be treated or considered equal,

00:32:27--> 00:32:29

which is our conclusion here. Now,

00:32:30--> 00:32:31

the next question.

00:32:33--> 00:32:39

Well, any questions about that, but my conclusion, not going to say is your conclusion or our conclusion is my conclusion.

00:32:44--> 00:32:46

Yeah, with something many examples? Yeah.

00:32:48--> 00:32:49

This is not difficult to come up with.

00:32:51--> 00:32:54

Okay. Now, the next question

00:32:55--> 00:32:57

is, is this really an important difference?

00:32:58--> 00:33:00

Or is it really something just semantics?

00:33:02--> 00:33:02

Love via

00:33:08--> 00:33:12

I would say between economic health to be an advantage as a matter of

00:33:14--> 00:33:14

love.

00:33:22--> 00:33:25

Okay, data between these two, it doesn't matter.

00:33:27--> 00:33:36

Otherwise, if you study adults of these writings, john, he applies them exactly the same way that maybe not exactly the same with

00:33:37--> 00:33:38

any other way of

00:33:40--> 00:33:51

thought, it's pretty much the same. Okay. But the problem is that this argument, were not understood in the same way that a shot to be understood it

00:33:53--> 00:33:57

is that this argument, leaves open the possibility for many dangerous things.

00:34:01--> 00:34:03

Holy in a book of missteps, and

00:34:04--> 00:34:10

he says, take precedence over the sun and back to the sun, that is only an explanation of the problem.

00:34:12--> 00:34:22

So we argue from that, that we have to call the bar or the apparent meaning of the Quran, when he has eat or anything that it tried to particular lies upon or doesn't go by the law.

00:34:23--> 00:34:24

It must be rejected.

00:34:26--> 00:34:32

So he's using this argument, saying the project's precedence over the sooner that if there's any heavy changes,

00:34:35--> 00:34:44

like this one, anybody that adds a new law or changes or specifies exactly what the laws are put on is about is that it must be rejected

00:34:47--> 00:34:49

is the person who wrote the book on this to happen

00:34:50--> 00:34:59

as a century. Also, there's a book called fish really slowly by two authors. I think one of them is named as the cookie, cookie, the other one I don't remember

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

They said the same thing. Okay. So this this argument is dangerous because it opens the door, especially for people then like Russia.

00:35:10--> 00:35:16

Okay? If I understood properly like the job to be understood it, then yes, there's no difference.

00:35:18--> 00:35:33

But in order to be careful, not enough to allow the door to be open for people who wants to misinterpret them, we can say that in a certain set as the point of priority, the grounds are equally authoritative.

00:35:37--> 00:35:38

And there's the postcard right?

00:35:45--> 00:35:46

The name of the book is Mr. Hudson.

00:35:52--> 00:35:53

Yeah, with Oreo Oreos.

00:35:54--> 00:35:55

They abused everything that

00:36:08--> 00:36:09

you have to say,

00:36:11--> 00:36:12

by bringing me

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

how many we have in the class?

00:36:18--> 00:36:19

Point.

00:36:20--> 00:36:23

He said he quoted at least 20 points, the people who were fooled by this point.

00:36:29--> 00:36:30

Nowadays, anyone can write I've written myself.

00:36:32--> 00:36:33

don't need anything right.

00:36:36--> 00:36:38

Now, will I just pay for the required reading?

00:36:41--> 00:36:42

requires listening. Yeah.

00:36:43--> 00:36:47

Any questions about this? And what's the point? Why went over?

00:36:50--> 00:36:51

Okay. Now the next.

00:36:57--> 00:36:59

Yeah, we'll get to many of these.

00:37:07--> 00:37:13

Okay, one example of that, where I know when when Allah subhanaw taala, describing who we can marry.

00:37:14--> 00:37:23

The last point, the last words in the verse, or any of the last relevant words refers to and what is other than that.

00:37:26--> 00:37:31

This is a general term, and which doesn't specifically say who it's talking about.

00:37:32--> 00:37:49

In other words, from the latter point of view, it is abundant, we cannot say exactly as it refers to everything beyond that. For the purposes lm explicitly says that marrying a woman and her aunt at the same time as Tom Civic is saying that so this is this is a dilemma that takes precedence over doesn't need the data,

00:37:53--> 00:37:53

even though it's not.

00:37:57--> 00:37:58

Okay.

00:38:00--> 00:38:02

Now related to this question,

00:38:03--> 00:38:08

and for the same for the same point, basically, for the same reasoning.

00:38:12--> 00:38:14

Actually, we already answered this question, but

00:38:19--> 00:38:19

we're

00:38:30--> 00:38:31

independent,

00:38:41--> 00:38:42

independent sources?

00:38:47--> 00:38:49

Actually, we've already answered this question.

00:38:51--> 00:38:59

topic again, that we have to go through for the same reason that we went through the other step it is misunderstood. It can lead to lots of mistakes.

00:39:26--> 00:39:35

know we discussed that last time, for example, we give examples of motor leads to them and Abraham, that even without the book, The Prophet doesn't need a book to be followed.

00:39:37--> 00:39:46

For example, I went to Pharaoh and it was obligatory on the ground to believe in Him and to obey Him, even though it was before most of the receipts the Torah.

00:39:47--> 00:39:59

So the obligation to follow profit is not contingent upon his having a book in this case, the obligation to call upon Him is not contingent upon him having the crime now

00:40:00--> 00:40:09

Please, as we just talked about the Quran and the Sunnah has the same source. And there's not going to be any actual contradiction between the Quran and the Sunnah.

00:40:10--> 00:40:16

There might be what is known as an apparent contradiction. In other words, when we look at it, we might think

00:40:17--> 00:40:22

that there's some contradiction because either we don't understand the person that had the property, or

00:40:24--> 00:40:30

the verse attribute. This could even happen between two lists are talking about two different things and we think they're talking about the same thing.

00:40:33--> 00:40:37

That's the question. As Mr. Jaffe wrote in travel reseller,

00:40:39--> 00:40:42

he says that I know of no scholar who does not agree

00:40:44--> 00:40:51

that's a poor translation, that will negative. I know of no scholar who does not agree that the sermon of the prophets falls into three categories,

00:40:52--> 00:40:55

two of which are agreed upon unanimously, and it shows in the

00:40:58--> 00:41:06

first row that the Quran has laid down some text by it, and the apostle has stressed them are present.

00:41:08--> 00:41:16

In second are ambiguous communications in the Quran, in which the Prophet says in them explain the meaning. These are the two categories on which the scores do not disagree.

00:41:17--> 00:41:24

The third category consists of what the province has laid down in the center and concerning which there's no text in the book.

00:41:26--> 00:41:26

So

00:41:28--> 00:41:29

there's three sentences.

00:41:32--> 00:41:35

The first thing that basically is the policy

00:41:36--> 00:41:39

emphasize what was already mentioned in

00:41:49--> 00:42:05

this one everyone is agreed upon, just like when the poster sentence is built upon five, she has a lot of work. And it is just emphasizing the obligations, the obligatory nature of these things which we find in the Quran, Allah subhana wa, tada or does this in the Quran to pray basic and so forth.

00:42:07--> 00:42:07

Okay.

00:42:09--> 00:42:10

Number two,

00:42:13--> 00:42:14

explain the meaning of the

00:42:24--> 00:42:30

words, the public, took a verse and showed us exactly how to play. And we get many examples of that. But

00:42:31--> 00:42:32

again, there's no difference between

00:42:34--> 00:42:37

consensus that these are

00:42:38--> 00:42:39

correct, and they exist.

00:42:41--> 00:42:42

Number three,

00:42:43--> 00:42:45

the one that there's some difference about

00:42:46--> 00:42:48

the lay down

00:42:55--> 00:42:56

for which

00:42:59--> 00:43:00

there's no text in the clock.

00:43:14--> 00:43:15

Yeah, no.

00:43:16--> 00:43:17

No.

00:43:19--> 00:43:20

nonspecific

00:43:33--> 00:43:35

now the two questions that arise

00:43:36--> 00:43:37

from this

00:43:38--> 00:43:39

three clicks everyone

00:43:47--> 00:43:48

is

00:43:54--> 00:43:54

working.

00:43:57--> 00:43:57

Think

00:44:01--> 00:44:04

the two questions that come up, do

00:44:06--> 00:44:08

the things described number three, do they exist?

00:44:10--> 00:44:11

If so,

00:44:13--> 00:44:13

are they

00:44:20--> 00:44:21

okay?

00:44:23--> 00:44:24

Do these exist actually?

00:44:26--> 00:44:32

And if they do exist, if we can prove that the boat doesn't exist on the innocent, which there's no specific mention of boron?

00:44:34--> 00:44:35

Should we consider that?

00:44:39--> 00:44:41

The author of the text

00:44:42--> 00:44:54

in a separate article and not not from the text? He wrote that the original anyhow this discussion originally came up is that there was a group of people who said that these things are not

00:44:59--> 00:44:59

and then it was poor.

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

To them or it was showing me there in other words in their arguments they were defeated by showing that the public system was not so many has to be obeyed whether it is from the fraud or not

00:45:11--> 00:45:13

so therefore to hide they're gonna have

00:45:15--> 00:45:17

to hide them or have they changed their argument

00:45:18--> 00:45:22

not saying any that they're not good yeah they then said well actually they don't exist

00:45:23--> 00:45:24

this category doesn't exist

00:45:26--> 00:45:28

That's according to a Gallup how this how this debate

00:45:30--> 00:45:33

began What do you think the number three the three exists?

00:45:36--> 00:45:37

Everyone thinks pre exists

00:45:40--> 00:45:42

okay one of the greatest scholars

00:45:44--> 00:45:45

who I refer to now

00:45:47--> 00:45:48

whose work

00:45:49--> 00:45:53

not on the reading list but a work about him is on the reading list.

00:46:04--> 00:46:05

famous book and waterpark.

00:46:07--> 00:46:11

Classic word, he says number three, are these things do not exist.

00:46:12--> 00:46:17

There's no such thing as assuming that there's no text in the Koran.

00:46:19--> 00:46:20

What, what's this book?

00:46:24--> 00:46:28

Okay, one of the sources the verse, verse maharatna.

00:46:30--> 00:46:32

We have nothing out of the box

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

is saying that if there are some sort of wish, there's no technical that contradicts this.

00:46:52--> 00:46:55

Everything must be sourced, everything must be done.

00:47:02--> 00:47:04

He also used the worst ones in

00:47:06--> 00:47:07

the civilian internet

00:47:09--> 00:47:11

that we have revealed to you

00:47:22--> 00:47:23

in order to explain

00:47:25--> 00:47:26

in order for you to explain

00:47:33--> 00:47:34

what was revealed.

00:47:39--> 00:47:41

Just notice the first time I've been reading the whole verse

00:47:43--> 00:47:43

on the board.

00:47:47--> 00:47:48

Hey, what's up so from this verse

00:47:53--> 00:47:56

know, what is Broadcom? This vs. Number three doesn't exist.

00:48:02--> 00:48:08

He's saying that it was the public's job to explain the crime. So therefore everything he did must be an explanation of the crime.

00:48:10--> 00:48:11

Okay, well,

00:48:16--> 00:48:17

he also uses a version of God.

00:48:32--> 00:48:32

Anyway.

00:48:39--> 00:48:39

Okay.

00:48:40--> 00:48:44

And he also with this Yes, it says Isaiah, which is

00:48:47--> 00:48:52

the Holocaust, the character or the personality or the behavior of the public system was nothing more than the Quran

00:48:55--> 00:48:59

meaning everything that has been observed, you should find source word, according to what I said.

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

Yeah, let's ignore that for the time being

00:49:07--> 00:49:08

and has fought through

00:49:13--> 00:49:13

that

00:49:15--> 00:49:17

logic is sticking to the Quran.

00:49:20--> 00:49:22

The poor code that the brain

00:49:23--> 00:49:24

is this day

00:49:27--> 00:49:28

have I

00:49:31--> 00:49:32

perfected or completed,

00:49:38--> 00:49:39

perfected or completed

00:49:51--> 00:49:59

that he's saying that this verse was revealed because this was the last verse of the Quran. So it says describing the Quran so he's saying when the Koran

00:50:00--> 00:50:05

stopped being revealed the deal was complete. So therefore, there's no way that the sooner could have added something to it.

00:50:09--> 00:50:10

Okay,

00:50:11--> 00:50:12

any comments about this?

00:50:19--> 00:50:20

Okay.

00:50:21--> 00:50:24

Now Chelsea was, was very intelligent.

00:50:31--> 00:50:35

And he noticed, and this is actually where his argument really falls apart.

00:50:36--> 00:50:42

He noticed, he noticed that there are some verses which I mean something that which is very hard to

00:50:44--> 00:50:58

relate back to the Quran. In other words, this is his theoretical argument. And then when he goes recall, post facto to the Sunni finds many things that and you cannot refer them to others.

00:50:59--> 00:51:02

So, in order to force his argument to be correct,

00:51:04--> 00:51:10

he comes up with five ways by which all of the thumbnails of the process could be reverted back to fraud.

00:51:11--> 00:51:17

The first one that said when you look at these, this is really where his argument falls apart.

00:51:19--> 00:51:22

I think this was good. This was good thinking, although we'll go to each one of those verses.

00:51:23--> 00:51:30

But this is really I mean, when you read this from him, you really feel like he has an argument and he just trying to force it on you.

00:51:33--> 00:51:37

This exists. No, you say no, you say no.

00:51:40--> 00:51:41

To me,

00:51:44--> 00:51:46

okay. Number one, he says, and this is Jenny,

00:51:51--> 00:51:51

ordered

00:51:52--> 00:51:55

you to follow.

00:52:03--> 00:52:05

So therefore, anytime you're playing, the sooner you actually play.

00:52:09--> 00:52:10

For anything

00:52:12--> 00:52:13

you apply, the sooner

00:52:18--> 00:52:19

you apply, the sooner

00:52:24--> 00:52:24

you're playing.

00:52:34--> 00:52:36

Remember the straw man fallacy?

00:52:37--> 00:52:38

earning a lot of us

00:52:40--> 00:52:43

the sum and fallacy we discussed it before this is somebody else doesn't go begging the question.

00:52:52--> 00:52:53

begging the question

00:52:54--> 00:52:56

and you have something you have a question.

00:52:58--> 00:53:04

reasonable question and you give an answer that completely really just avoid the question

00:53:05--> 00:53:07

that's what that is. That's begging the question

00:53:13--> 00:53:18

because you can take from that that then there are words in their arsenal which there's no specific verse

00:53:20--> 00:53:21

specific verse

00:53:23--> 00:53:25

so he's actually here he's avoiding the question.

00:53:26--> 00:53:27

Secondly,

00:53:28--> 00:53:35

I said this is one way that some Oliver it was this way. He said here's another way to relate all the plant back to the

00:53:37--> 00:53:37

bathroom.

00:53:41--> 00:53:43

If you look to the commands, commandments,

00:53:44--> 00:53:47

they are divided into three categories.

00:53:52--> 00:53:53

necessities,

00:53:58--> 00:54:00

yet boulia

00:54:01--> 00:54:07

wha wha necessities? Well, I just was a good translation

00:54:10--> 00:54:12

needs are less and

00:54:14--> 00:54:18

as important as necessity. And the third one I guess we can go and look

00:54:19--> 00:54:20

for

00:54:23--> 00:54:32

is that all commands are meant to either fulfill this one or this one or fulfill this one. And he says also all of this

00:54:33--> 00:54:35

can also be put into these categories.

00:54:40--> 00:54:45

He Said another way to automatically do it is by showing that all of this

00:54:50--> 00:54:51

is a type of fear

00:54:54--> 00:54:54

type of analogy.

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

Okay,

00:55:04--> 00:55:09

for example, he says that the Quran says this is not allowed to marry

00:55:10--> 00:55:17

two sisters at one time. So therefore makes sense by analogy, that also you shouldn't be allowed to marry a woman in her hand.

00:55:20--> 00:55:21

This is his example Not,

00:55:23--> 00:55:29

not mine. Also, our data says this alisson header with data allows the user to

00:55:31--> 00:55:34

make parameter. So therefore anything can fall under.

00:55:38--> 00:55:38

Okay.

00:55:39--> 00:55:40

Let's also

00:55:44--> 00:55:44

look at a

00:55:46--> 00:55:47

fourth one again.

00:55:49--> 00:55:51

It says that the blonde is Muslim, or

00:55:54--> 00:55:56

the Quran is not detailed, it is general.

00:56:00--> 00:56:01

And there's some there's definitely

00:56:05--> 00:56:06

some there's simply

00:56:08--> 00:56:09

no explanation.

00:56:14--> 00:56:18

Good. He's begging the question here. Because you have to prove now

00:56:19--> 00:56:24

can you really say this explanation of some type of crime? And we'll get to that.

00:56:27--> 00:56:28

And the fifth one,

00:56:31--> 00:56:35

he says, By deeply understanding or by understanding

00:56:39--> 00:56:40

by simply understanding

00:56:42--> 00:56:43

the wording of the Quran

00:56:46--> 00:56:47

he will come up with the suddenness.

00:56:53--> 00:56:53

Come up with

00:56:55--> 00:56:57

this one, this one he rejects.

00:57:00--> 00:57:02

You mentioned this, but he said that isn't

00:57:05--> 00:57:09

Jesus presenting the arguments of health relates all the sudden

00:57:11--> 00:57:17

it says For example, you cannot just go to the Quran and understand the worst of us, and then come up with the prayer as we know it now.

00:57:20--> 00:57:21

So he rejects that one.

00:57:22--> 00:57:32

No, yeah, he I think he is saying Jesus the ways by which you can say that all of this is from the Quran. There's no independence. And

00:57:33--> 00:57:39

no, no, he's saying that he's using these arguments. He also presented that one, but he says and he says no, this is not correct.

00:57:46--> 00:57:49

That's as I was saying that there's no such group of subnets.

00:57:51--> 00:57:53

That's a sore throat a little bit.

00:57:55--> 00:57:59

Just sticking to these verses, for example. We have left nothing out of the book.

00:58:01--> 00:58:01

Well,

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

the book, the book, yeah, as we said, before, that most likely it doesn't refer to fraud, right?

00:58:09--> 00:58:10

We discussed this when

00:58:12--> 00:58:15

we discussed this for those people who are you against the system.

00:58:16--> 00:58:20

We said, the book most likely refers to the Gordon tablet. But

00:58:22--> 00:58:32

if you understand this book, I mean, this verse, and the way that Justin is arguing with it, you're going to get to the conclusion that he himself doesn't want.

00:58:33--> 00:58:36

Okay? Because it's also he believes in the second type of sooner.

00:58:37--> 00:58:39

I wish the public system explained

00:58:40--> 00:58:46

here, if he only the way he's saying this is that even as most of them know, which is explanation for the front.

00:58:49--> 00:58:52

Because everything is contained in the book. So therefore,

00:58:53--> 00:58:56

the only thing the public system could have done any stress to medium.

00:58:58--> 00:59:01

So this leads to conclusion that even a sofa bat would reject.

00:59:02--> 00:59:04

So that's like crossing

00:59:06--> 00:59:11

crossing things out. So self study himself would not accept this argument if you realize what he's actually saying.

00:59:12--> 00:59:13

Because we know his position on the sun

00:59:18--> 00:59:30

that he pointed to, but I'm saying that if you understand this verse, the way you understand this, nothing is left out of the book. So therefore, he cannot say the book is minimal and needs explanation.

00:59:33--> 00:59:35

Know a saying nothing has been left out of the book.

00:59:38--> 00:59:39

nothing,

00:59:40--> 00:59:41

not even the explanation.

00:59:51--> 00:59:58

Okay, so if you know the point is that if this is the book, then you're not proving you're not proving that this could not have enough

01:00:00--> 01:00:06

He's trying to prove the distance of love. The only way you could do it is by also picking this one up.

01:00:08--> 01:00:08

Okay,

01:00:09--> 01:00:10

the third one,

01:00:12--> 01:00:20

excuse me, the second one. The second one says we have given you a good note the sentiment and what has been revealed to them. It is not all encompassing.

01:00:22--> 01:00:29

It's not saying that the only thing that's in them is going to do is explain to mankind with this interview. That's not what this person

01:00:31--> 01:00:45

does. This is commonly called macom, and maharlika, which is what the most of alumni they reject. And it's not what the versus the verse is not all encompassing, doesn't say the, the only job we've given to you is to explain

01:00:47--> 01:00:52

thoroughly, this verse here and the heaviness of it, the fullness of the promises, and

01:00:53--> 01:00:57

it simply says that the provinces dilemma did not do anything that goes against the Quran.

01:00:59--> 01:01:03

And if the public says that and never did anything that goes against the Quran that has caught up with

01:01:06--> 01:01:07

and this last one,

01:01:08--> 01:01:13

first of all this this, according to Merriam, sabrine, this verse is referring to what

01:01:16--> 01:01:21

not just referring to the fact that revelation has come to an end, but it is referring to the fact that

01:01:22--> 01:01:28

God has completed this gene by making it superior above all of the other genes of the world.

01:01:31--> 01:01:47

And in any case, even if it means the way is just to be understand this, if if the if it was the cornerstone, that established the independent source of the profit system as a source of law, which is what we just talked about last time, then again, this is not an argument in the spirit.

01:01:50--> 01:01:52

So therefore, these are not these are not strong arguments.

01:01:55--> 01:01:56

Probably is worse is this one

01:01:58--> 01:02:01

thing that all the sudden as a pack of beer.

01:02:02--> 01:02:03

And here, you think that

01:02:05--> 01:02:09

is an acceptable source of law. And it takes precedence over this.

01:02:10--> 01:02:11

And that's what he does.

01:02:15--> 01:02:17

This one is just begging the question this one.

01:02:18--> 01:02:31

And if he wants to say that you can say that, but it's not the you're avoiding the question. There are certain things in the cinema, which you cannot trade, specifically to the Quran.

01:02:32--> 01:02:35

For example, even taking this one everything is necessities and luxuries.

01:02:37--> 01:02:38

And if for example,

01:02:40--> 01:02:43

the prayer at the time of the eclipse

01:02:45--> 01:02:46

there's no there's no nothing.

01:02:48--> 01:02:48

Nothing at all.

01:02:50--> 01:02:56

How are you going to argue that there is something in the Quran? Danny pointing to this?

01:02:59--> 01:03:00

Yeah, this is begging the question.

01:03:02--> 01:03:04

Is there any text? Is there any?

01:03:06--> 01:03:06

Is there any?

01:03:08--> 01:03:10

Is there anything that promises didn't did the steps

01:03:11--> 01:03:13

for which there's no specific text in the Quran?

01:03:17--> 01:03:18

Is not?

01:03:24--> 01:03:39

What you're saying is that the bond proves that the public sentiment is an independent source of law, meaning that whatever the promises that it brings, must be false. Well, that's going against what you're saying. He thinks that the post does not bring anything that is not fun.

01:03:44--> 01:03:46

Now, again, the same question applies.

01:03:48--> 01:03:55

Because we know what he's trying to say is that the Quran is Columbia Law and it has the source or evidence for everything.

01:03:57--> 01:04:05

And in other words, you starting with that proposition and trying to prove it. And if you want to prove it in a general way like this, which really doesn't

01:04:06--> 01:04:16

establish the point. The point is from the Quran itself, that the problem is that to them, as we talked about last time, is both an independent source of law and also an artist of obedience.

01:04:18--> 01:04:19

So anything he brings,

01:04:21--> 01:04:22

we have to follow we have to be

01:04:25--> 01:04:30

and that includes anything even if there's no direct source course and now again,

01:04:31--> 01:04:33

the difference between us health to be here and the difference

01:04:35--> 01:04:36

is one avoiding only

01:04:39--> 01:04:46

shelter B he's not saying that if you find it's not it's not saying that if you find the sooner you find it

01:04:48--> 01:04:55

and you go to home and you can't find any added any, any any verse that would support it anyway, that you should reject it.

01:04:57--> 01:04:58

That's not what he's saying.

01:04:59--> 01:05:00

If you understand

01:05:00--> 01:05:11

is the way he explained it. That's not what he's saying. He's just saying that there's some way like with offline disco now there's some way that you can say that, whatever the problem is, there is some authority for it.

01:05:13--> 01:05:16

But the problem again, is that some people apply it in the wrong way.

01:05:18--> 01:05:24

Some people reply in the wrong way by saying that everything in the sun now must have some sort in the Quran.

01:05:26--> 01:05:34

So therefore, they go to the head, even if they find that they don't like, meaning there's no specific verse in the Quran, similar to what they rejected.

01:05:35--> 01:05:36

This is not what the South of England.

01:05:38--> 01:05:42

Okay, if you look at these arguments here, clear, this is not what he meant.

01:05:43--> 01:05:46

But the problem, again, is that people can understand him.

01:05:48--> 01:05:54

Both as also being a shot, we agree that anything that comes from the Prophet Muhammad has to be applied in this project.

01:05:55--> 01:06:05

But if you just take this, for example, if you stop reading his book here, and don't go on to there, or what's even worse is this is the only part of his book that you quote.

01:06:06--> 01:06:13

Now, that's the way if you want to use an argument, you just quote this and you leave this out. Therefore, you can argue from an economic health if you want to

01:06:14--> 01:06:18

know that, if you find that there's no source in the Quran.

01:06:20--> 01:06:44

And what's worse is that these people who are you like this, the green IDs, which is fabricated, and they take any ID from me, the fabricator says, that any IDs for me should be taken to the Quran, whatever is consistent with the Quran is accepted in whatever goes against the Puranas reject. So he takes this fabricate, and again, interpret the fabricated Hadees, which you interpret the way you want, you'll come up with the same conclusion.

01:06:45--> 01:06:56

So these two and it wasn't the Quran is superior to the similar, or whether they are equal and whether or not the significant as independence was the law. Meaning does number three here exist? And isn't just

01:06:57--> 01:07:03

these two should be understood in order to avoid the types of tricks that we see people who are writing nowadays do.

01:07:05--> 01:07:08

And that's why I went over them in some detail, because

01:07:10--> 01:07:16

unfortunately, we're seeing this kind of thing over and over again, and you know,

01:07:17--> 01:07:25

people are trying to and if people are discussing really questions, that sort of stuff, and they're trying to turn them down in the way that they wanted to.

01:07:28--> 01:07:30

This question is related to

01:07:32--> 01:07:35

three other or three other there's another way of looking at this

01:07:37--> 01:07:38

this topic,

01:07:39--> 01:07:47

which I'm not going to cover, so since I went 20 minutes over last time, I was finished by Minnesota even though how intensely

01:07:49--> 01:07:52

Yeah, I know even though he came 10 minutes late will finish 10 minutes.

01:07:57--> 01:08:03

Any questions or comments about why we left over and what's the what's the important conclusion

01:08:05--> 01:08:07

or different conclusions I get from the two