Jamal Zarabozo – Principles Of Fiqh Part 2

Jamal Zarabozo
Share Page

AI: Summary ©

The speakers discuss the definition of a "core," meaning a Christian person, and how it is defined in various books. They also touch on the importance of evidence and the use of logos in litigation. The speakers stress the need for proper explanation and evidence in order to prove the legitimacy of actions. They also mention the importance of the Arabic language and the need for proper reading.

AI: Summary ©

00:00:02 --> 00:00:08
			Let me clear up a couple of points from from last time. The same By the way,
		
00:00:09 --> 00:00:09
			my book
		
00:00:17 --> 00:00:25
			last time, I hope you got some benefit from the from the hour and a half. It wasn't meant just to,
to kill an hour and a half. But
		
00:00:27 --> 00:00:30
			after what we went through yesterday, if you pick up any book
		
00:00:32 --> 00:00:38
			and from the beginning, when they define, you'll be able to tell where the author's coming from,
what kind of point of view
		
00:00:39 --> 00:00:46
			he's coming from, and how he how it is how he defines this sort of stuff and what he will cover. I
assume you all remember this from last
		
00:00:47 --> 00:00:48
			from last time, this is the definition of what
		
00:00:56 --> 00:00:56
			what
		
00:00:58 --> 00:00:59
			is the definition of a soul.
		
00:01:01 --> 00:01:05
			It also says the definition of a soul, Danny, you're your one leg out of the class.
		
00:01:08 --> 00:01:08
			The definition of
		
00:01:10 --> 00:01:11
			the science
		
00:01:12 --> 00:01:16
			of the camp, by the way, I found what we mean by here.
		
00:01:18 --> 00:01:20
			When we were when we
		
00:01:21 --> 00:01:29
			were talking about whether something is way different MOBA or ROM, or Sahara was whether something
is obligatory or
		
00:01:30 --> 00:01:38
			or forbidden or sound or void. Anyway, as I was writing on the board, there was some discussion
above this word.
		
00:01:40 --> 00:01:44
			Should it be feminine, referring to gamma or masking them referring to em?
		
00:01:45 --> 00:01:53
			Well, I found this in five books. This is this is the traditional Sharpie Assouline definition of so
you can find it in many books.
		
00:01:55 --> 00:01:56
			And all of them had it.
		
00:01:58 --> 00:02:14
			And in the suitcase book, German Joanna the the one who wrote the commentary, Mandala he wrote
clearly, as if you knew we know, someday, someone like me was going to try to teach this and someone
like our brother would try to refute me
		
00:02:15 --> 00:02:21
			vertical, Janice is referring to him. So that is the correct definition. There's a small point but I
thought I would
		
00:02:24 --> 00:02:25
			get it out of the way.
		
00:02:28 --> 00:02:31
			So to review, we didn't say this explicitly.
		
00:02:35 --> 00:02:37
			But there's some things as I said, I want to clear up from last time
		
00:02:39 --> 00:02:43
			the census that is the definition of which we went over last time
		
00:02:48 --> 00:02:50
			sip tells us if something
		
00:02:56 --> 00:02:57
			is white
		
00:03:03 --> 00:03:03
			recommended
		
00:03:08 --> 00:03:11
			or permissible or what
		
00:03:13 --> 00:03:13
			is five
		
00:03:14 --> 00:03:16
			haram forbidden or disliked
		
00:03:20 --> 00:03:21
			this also tells us
		
00:03:23 --> 00:03:24
			something
		
00:03:28 --> 00:03:29
			is bound
		
00:03:31 --> 00:03:31
			by that
		
00:03:33 --> 00:03:34
			void
		
00:03:38 --> 00:03:41
			or and this is for the heavy and the class
		
00:03:43 --> 00:03:43
			or irregular
		
00:03:46 --> 00:03:52
			meaning that any other that has the only have sound and voice
		
00:03:56 --> 00:04:00
			also the sciences that also includes the particular
		
00:04:02 --> 00:04:02
			evidences.
		
00:04:06 --> 00:04:07
			evidences for
		
00:04:09 --> 00:04:10
			practical
		
00:04:17 --> 00:04:20
			Okay, the particular evidences for practical matters.
		
00:04:22 --> 00:04:23
			That is what
		
00:04:24 --> 00:04:25
			these are the things that
		
00:04:27 --> 00:04:29
			we learn and these things
		
00:04:31 --> 00:04:33
			we're not going to be studying here, right?
		
00:04:34 --> 00:04:37
			This has nothing to do with what we're well, I shouldn't say nothing.
		
00:04:39 --> 00:04:42
			Everybody has this definition of this.
		
00:04:45 --> 00:04:47
			So did you write this down?
		
00:05:02 --> 00:05:05
			How much trying to avoid writing in Arabic? After
		
00:05:11 --> 00:05:13
			Seoul, South Korea, this is what we talked about last time.
		
00:05:16 --> 00:05:20
			I mean, this is like review of last time. So this should come out quickly.
		
00:05:26 --> 00:05:27
			That's pretty quick once you say
		
00:05:34 --> 00:05:35
			how to drive,
		
00:05:36 --> 00:05:38
			how to drive legal rulings?
		
00:05:55 --> 00:05:57
			Remember, my husband's definition
		
00:05:58 --> 00:05:58
			of assault is?
		
00:06:04 --> 00:06:06
			Also who's qualified to use those.
		
00:06:19 --> 00:06:19
			What's up?
		
00:06:34 --> 00:06:35
			the giving of this one?
		
00:06:36 --> 00:06:36
			What
		
00:06:38 --> 00:06:39
			did we say?
		
00:06:43 --> 00:06:45
			Check to see if last time was really with them or not.
		
00:06:47 --> 00:06:48
			That's how to drive.
		
00:06:51 --> 00:06:53
			Number two who was qualified to
		
00:06:56 --> 00:06:56
			live?
		
00:06:58 --> 00:07:00
			Okay. What, what
		
00:07:01 --> 00:07:02
			is very important also,
		
00:07:04 --> 00:07:05
			according to our definition of
		
00:07:06 --> 00:07:08
			what is and
		
00:07:09 --> 00:07:09
			is not
		
00:07:11 --> 00:07:12
			an acceptable
		
00:07:14 --> 00:07:15
			form other than
		
00:07:26 --> 00:07:28
			what is and is not an acceptable form of evidence.
		
00:07:33 --> 00:07:33
			Right.
		
00:07:34 --> 00:07:36
			And there's one more that we didn't really
		
00:07:38 --> 00:07:40
			I didn't really mention yesterday.
		
00:07:46 --> 00:07:48
			That is the relationship
		
00:07:54 --> 00:07:55
			between
		
00:07:58 --> 00:07:58
			the
		
00:08:00 --> 00:08:01
			types of evidence
		
00:08:07 --> 00:08:08
			evidences
		
00:08:09 --> 00:08:10
			the correct evidence,
		
00:08:11 --> 00:08:12
			thank you.
		
00:08:16 --> 00:08:18
			To get out of the way so you can take a picture of the board.
		
00:08:24 --> 00:08:24
			Okay.
		
00:08:30 --> 00:08:32
			We use the term loosely.
		
00:08:38 --> 00:08:39
			Now, for example,
		
00:08:41 --> 00:08:46
			some types of evidence are stronger than other sets of so there's a conflict between two sets of
evidence
		
00:08:48 --> 00:08:50
			tells you which one takes precedence over the other
		
00:08:56 --> 00:09:04
			three and four just tells you what is an acceptable form of evidence or what isn't? Number Four
ranked them in order of strength.
		
00:09:05 --> 00:09:12
			For example, the Hadees which is much awaited or has been narrated by many people on each chain is
the type of person
		
00:09:13 --> 00:09:15
			so as the head eat, which is
		
00:09:16 --> 00:09:21
			both of them are evidence. But if there's a conflict between the two, which one is stronger?
		
00:09:23 --> 00:09:26
			So as opposed to tells us which one is stronger, which one takes preference.
		
00:09:29 --> 00:09:34
			Now these four except for the last one, they should have been clear from what we talked about last
time.
		
00:09:35 --> 00:09:35
			Okay.
		
00:09:37 --> 00:09:40
			So this class is not about this stuff. Over here.
		
00:09:41 --> 00:09:42
			is about the stuff over there
		
00:09:46 --> 00:09:48
			that clear Any questions about that?
		
00:09:54 --> 00:09:56
			Yesterday, there was after class
		
00:10:00 --> 00:10:00
			Funny.
		
00:10:04 --> 00:10:05
			Which one?
		
00:10:08 --> 00:10:08
			This one?
		
00:10:11 --> 00:10:13
			Again, this is just the Hanafi.
		
00:10:18 --> 00:10:21
			Question. You look very confused brother.
		
00:10:27 --> 00:10:29
			How come they're all from the same university as you
		
00:10:34 --> 00:10:39
			left out the name of the university, you told me to leave our names because of the tape. But they're
all from the same university.
		
00:10:43 --> 00:10:55
			Okay, after after the class on Tuesday, there was a couple people made comments after the class that
showed me that is one of the points that they have to clarify.
		
00:10:58 --> 00:11:01
			This one number one, number one here is talking about
		
00:11:02 --> 00:11:04
			the blood for the legal Maxim's.
		
00:11:14 --> 00:11:25
			As I said last time, legal Maxim's actually is not a good definition for what we're talking about
here. And apparently, from what I heard after class,
		
00:11:26 --> 00:11:30
			I should clarify this. The difference between three things.
		
00:11:34 --> 00:11:35
			One is the
		
00:11:47 --> 00:11:49
			money right from the other side?
		
00:11:53 --> 00:11:54
			No, because I'm going to read here.
		
00:11:56 --> 00:11:59
			I want to call this now General, legal maximum.
		
00:12:01 --> 00:12:02
			Legal max.
		
00:12:16 --> 00:12:18
			Okay, let me erase them first, and then I will
		
00:12:20 --> 00:12:20
			get to the
		
00:12:23 --> 00:12:24
			other one is glide.
		
00:12:27 --> 00:12:27
			glide
		
00:12:29 --> 00:12:29
			up here.
		
00:12:33 --> 00:12:35
			Okay, these are
		
00:12:37 --> 00:12:39
			since you said in Turkish, you have the word step I'm going to use to
		
00:12:40 --> 00:12:41
			go this step.
		
00:12:44 --> 00:12:44
			Okay.
		
00:12:48 --> 00:12:55
			And then we have a beloved up here. So they don't remember how to spell the word in Arabic.
		
00:12:57 --> 00:12:59
			All right, it's in English. But what?
		
00:13:00 --> 00:13:02
			I'm going to call this one little.
		
00:13:10 --> 00:13:15
			Okay, let's talk about what's the difference between the three of them. And then we'll
		
00:13:16 --> 00:13:17
			talk about
		
00:13:19 --> 00:13:22
			those to be clear to you what we're going to discuss in this class.
		
00:13:30 --> 00:13:30
			constraint.
		
00:13:31 --> 00:13:33
			No, no, here it means.
		
00:13:34 --> 00:13:39
			That's a very good translation for the other to the other appear.
		
00:13:41 --> 00:13:44
			No, it doesn't seem like Good. Good. Okay.
		
00:13:47 --> 00:13:52
			So this is a study of those four things. Number one is referring to an allied alien.
		
00:13:54 --> 00:13:57
			Okay, this chord are independent
		
00:13:59 --> 00:14:01
			and dependent in the pendant.
		
00:14:04 --> 00:14:05
			Any
		
00:14:08 --> 00:14:08
			questions?
		
00:14:17 --> 00:14:21
			In a second that will give for an event that will give examples
		
00:14:22 --> 00:14:22
			of that.
		
00:14:27 --> 00:14:35
			I'm going to give examples of this and when I give examples, it'll be clear what I mean by sub
Maxim's or a Cohen Sapir
		
00:14:37 --> 00:14:45
			require the supreme court or a ruling that applies to many cases. independent of the of the topic of
		
00:14:47 --> 00:14:49
			what we're really talking about many cases
		
00:14:54 --> 00:14:54
			are based
		
00:14:56 --> 00:14:59
			or that are based or the go back to
		
00:15:00 --> 00:15:00
			The same
		
00:15:07 --> 00:15:09
			on the same deductive analogy or
		
00:15:17 --> 00:15:20
			for example, who can we make apple of course
		
00:15:28 --> 00:15:29
			okay
		
00:15:36 --> 00:15:36
			English
		
00:15:38 --> 00:15:40
			not an English class This is me This is a class in English
		
00:15:43 --> 00:15:45
			the big difference between the two
		
00:15:50 --> 00:15:51
			yes
		
00:15:57 --> 00:16:03
			okay for example let's take an easy one dining necessity necessity renders
		
00:16:04 --> 00:16:10
			any provision things illegal makes them makes forbidden things legal that is one
		
00:16:15 --> 00:16:17
			necessity renders prohibited things permissible
		
00:16:21 --> 00:16:23
			in English and English
		
00:16:25 --> 00:16:26
			necessity
		
00:16:45 --> 00:16:47
			okay necessity renders prohibited things from
		
00:16:53 --> 00:16:55
			now this is an example of
		
00:16:59 --> 00:17:00
			this is a fighter
		
00:17:02 --> 00:17:10
			now, I said this is what we mean by many cases that are based on the same analogy. In other words,
whether you're talking about salon
		
00:17:12 --> 00:17:18
			or you're talking about fasting or you're talking about hex or you're talking about any many
different topics
		
00:17:20 --> 00:17:23
			I mean, assuming you can apply this principle
		
00:17:27 --> 00:17:29
			for example, with respect to prayer
		
00:17:31 --> 00:17:33
			Yanni someone
		
00:17:36 --> 00:17:41
			has his arm cut off for example, from here and he'll be excused from putting his hands here
		
00:17:44 --> 00:17:56
			also in the case of hex, he has some particular conditions he will be excluded from certain things.
So, this is a principle or Maxim that can be applied in almost any any topic.
		
00:17:57 --> 00:18:08
			Okay, so therefore it is called a Mac more quads are disappeared. Okay. This is not the type of
thing we're going to be sitting here.
		
00:18:09 --> 00:18:14
			Okay, unless we get to the end of the class near the end of the class, if you look at the reading
list,
		
00:18:15 --> 00:18:15
			I devoted
		
00:18:17 --> 00:18:20
			a separate lecture for that but I don't really believe we'll get there but
		
00:18:22 --> 00:18:23
			it is actually not a topic.
		
00:18:25 --> 00:18:27
			But it is an interesting topic. That's why
		
00:18:29 --> 00:18:31
			that's why if we have time, we'll get to it later.
		
00:18:33 --> 00:18:33
			Okay.
		
00:18:38 --> 00:18:38
			Yes.
		
00:18:50 --> 00:18:50
			Okay.
		
00:18:52 --> 00:18:58
			With respect although someone has cut off from here, and he doesn't have to wash obviously.
		
00:19:00 --> 00:19:02
			Okay, because of because of necessity.
		
00:19:11 --> 00:19:12
			Okay.
		
00:19:16 --> 00:19:17
			The first point
		
00:19:18 --> 00:19:21
			and seven points to call out is that
		
00:19:24 --> 00:19:25
			human beings have
		
00:19:30 --> 00:19:39
			no, I just I said it's independent of any sub question. We're going to get to examples of it. Okay.
Just be patient. Okay, another example another.
		
00:19:42 --> 00:19:48
			Another example is hardship. Similar to this Yanni hardship to get the get facility.
		
00:19:50 --> 00:19:50
			What is the
		
00:19:56 --> 00:19:59
			hardship if something is difficult than the law and it makes it
		
00:20:01 --> 00:20:02
			That's quite clear.
		
00:20:03 --> 00:20:11
			Can you have something you don't have to get to the point of Mura? If something is hard on the
people, then also you apply the principle that you try to make it easy
		
00:20:15 --> 00:20:15
			to get
		
00:20:19 --> 00:20:28
			that that's the same thing. Okay. So basically, what we're saying is we have many different cases,
we're applying the same, what we're really doing is we're applying the same analogy.
		
00:20:30 --> 00:20:32
			Okay. And the same way that if someone doesn't have an arm,
		
00:20:34 --> 00:20:38
			so suppose he doesn't have two arms? That obviously, he doesn't have to
		
00:20:40 --> 00:20:42
			wash them when he's making wood? Oh,
		
00:20:44 --> 00:20:48
			no, no, he doesn't have them. Obviously, the same person doesn't have to throw
		
00:20:49 --> 00:20:50
			the stones.
		
00:20:51 --> 00:21:08
			Right. So we're talking about things that are applied in any area, or not actually in any but in
many areas, as opposed to disappear, what they call little Maxim's of the law that are just in a
particular particular section of,
		
00:21:11 --> 00:21:11
			for example,
		
00:21:13 --> 00:21:20
			if something has a little bit of magetta, or a little bit of impurity, and a very small amount of
impurity, it doesn't make
		
00:21:22 --> 00:21:24
			any the whole thing impure. Okay,
		
00:21:26 --> 00:21:43
			we can apply that to many things, we can apply that to water, if you have a big thing of water, has
a little bit of impurity doesn't make it impure. If you have food as a little bit of impurity, it
doesn't make or I mean, if you have clothing, for example, and just a little bit of impurity.
		
00:21:47 --> 00:21:51
			Now, why is that a bother to not provide it?
		
00:21:52 --> 00:21:53
			Or is it one of the beloved?
		
00:21:56 --> 00:21:58
			To think what is it here for what they said about that?
		
00:22:01 --> 00:22:02
			Hey, just for what
		
00:22:04 --> 00:22:15
			it is just related to pick up the hot or the topical Sahara. So if you have some principles that are
just related to one topic, like purity bahara, for example, because that was
		
00:22:16 --> 00:22:17
			not quiet.
		
00:22:19 --> 00:22:26
			Now, if you have for example, what was the one you gave me a story, he's one of the brothers who,
because of him, we're going through.
		
00:22:30 --> 00:22:31
			I forget what you said.
		
00:22:32 --> 00:22:35
			But for example, with respect to court cases, there's specific
		
00:22:37 --> 00:22:43
			rules that you apply for that you can apply, which only applies to court cases, they don't apply to
anything else. So therefore critical
		
00:22:46 --> 00:22:47
			question.
		
00:23:03 --> 00:23:03
			water
		
00:23:08 --> 00:23:12
			that has a limit, meaning it is limited to a particular topic. And
		
00:23:14 --> 00:23:15
			that's what they mean by
		
00:23:17 --> 00:23:40
			the word this just refers to, and you can have a go of it that is just related to Sahara. And it is
a maxim, but it's only applied with respect to not a flight with respect to buying and selling or
marriage or these other things. While I should be in general, obviously, it doesn't have to be every
topic, but it can be applied to many topics.
		
00:23:44 --> 00:23:50
			No robot is related to a specific topic as an example,
		
00:23:54 --> 00:23:55
			it could be related just to sort of
		
00:23:56 --> 00:24:00
			it could be related just to buying for specific types of buying.
		
00:24:03 --> 00:24:03
			Anyway,
		
00:24:05 --> 00:24:08
			numbers two and three are as I said, we are not going to be studying them.
		
00:24:10 --> 00:24:12
			Now let's go back to what we are going to be sitting
		
00:24:32 --> 00:24:34
			as I said, they are legal Maxim's
		
00:24:35 --> 00:24:39
			there are legal Maxim's that are independent of any question.
		
00:24:43 --> 00:24:45
			For example, if we wanted, I think I gave this example.
		
00:24:47 --> 00:24:50
			If we want it to go from the verse that says, a payment
		
00:24:52 --> 00:25:00
			plan is a cat and we want to go from that verse to see what is the legal conclusion that we can get
from
		
00:25:01 --> 00:25:02
			Okay,
		
00:25:03 --> 00:25:04
			so the first step
		
00:25:11 --> 00:25:13
			as I said, we did this last time
		
00:25:22 --> 00:25:23
			just taking that part of the verse
		
00:25:25 --> 00:25:29
			Okay, this is this is actually a particular
		
00:25:30 --> 00:25:31
			evidence for something
		
00:25:34 --> 00:25:37
			okay? Which is in the
		
00:25:39 --> 00:25:42
			in the definition I erased the list
		
00:25:46 --> 00:25:47
			okay, how do we get from that
		
00:25:48 --> 00:25:51
			to the conclusion to the prayer
		
00:25:53 --> 00:25:53
			and the cat
		
00:25:56 --> 00:25:57
			are
		
00:25:59 --> 00:25:59
			obligatory
		
00:26:12 --> 00:26:15
			some okay Furukawa, okay. First thing,
		
00:26:17 --> 00:26:17
			every
		
00:26:19 --> 00:26:22
			verse we see that the verse
		
00:26:23 --> 00:26:24
			is in the imperative form,
		
00:26:25 --> 00:26:26
			which in Arabic is what?
		
00:26:32 --> 00:26:34
			English summer case is in the form of armor.
		
00:26:37 --> 00:26:38
			Okay.
		
00:26:39 --> 00:26:47
			Secondly, we apply the fighter solely, which is the independence of any question.
		
00:26:48 --> 00:26:49
			That's the imperative
		
00:26:54 --> 00:26:55
			implies
		
00:26:58 --> 00:26:58
			obligation.
		
00:27:05 --> 00:27:06
			This
		
00:27:08 --> 00:27:08
			is
		
00:27:11 --> 00:27:12
			one of the causes
		
00:27:16 --> 00:27:22
			that an imperative implies obligation has nothing to do with any particular question.
		
00:27:25 --> 00:27:27
			Okay, look like things just a little bit.
		
00:27:29 --> 00:27:37
			majesta doesn't affect anything. It's not like things that if you have hardship, you make things
easier. Does independence have any questions?
		
00:27:38 --> 00:27:40
			You can almost say it has nothing to do with
		
00:27:41 --> 00:27:43
			almost, but of course, we wouldn't say that.
		
00:27:47 --> 00:27:50
			This is the kind of thing that you study. And
		
00:27:53 --> 00:27:57
			you study the dealer and zero and what is
		
00:27:58 --> 00:28:02
			for example, in this case, this is a verse of the Quran so when
		
00:28:03 --> 00:28:04
			we
		
00:28:05 --> 00:28:07
			we study what is or what isn't a form of
		
00:28:08 --> 00:28:10
			evidence, what isn't acceptable.
		
00:28:11 --> 00:28:16
			Now without Of course, this is getting rather advanced. We haven't gotten there yet. But would you
say a verse in the Quran is the text of the
		
00:28:19 --> 00:28:20
			get right?
		
00:28:23 --> 00:28:24
			As it's late at night for you people are
		
00:28:34 --> 00:28:35
			imperative flies.
		
00:28:38 --> 00:28:38
			What you mean in general?
		
00:28:40 --> 00:28:47
			Okay, I will discuss it in more it is a big topic, but we'll discuss it in more detail later. Now in
this in this example,
		
00:28:48 --> 00:28:53
			is something that we should not have written down here somewhere. Okay.
		
00:28:58 --> 00:29:01
			Okay, first thing to note, is this, this step right here?
		
00:29:02 --> 00:29:03
			That part of
		
00:29:07 --> 00:29:12
			me preceded this verse thing. So that was the cat is in the imperative. What do we get that from?
		
00:29:16 --> 00:29:19
			Okay, this is from the Arabic language, actually, it's not part of us.
		
00:29:21 --> 00:29:22
			And we know that from the Arabic language.
		
00:29:24 --> 00:29:24
			Okay.
		
00:29:27 --> 00:29:28
			The second
		
00:29:29 --> 00:29:35
			second step, as I said, this is the general principle of the legal Maxim
		
00:29:36 --> 00:29:38
			Okay, that we use to derive this ruling.
		
00:29:39 --> 00:29:42
			The ruling itself the conclusion is this part of
		
00:29:45 --> 00:29:55
			No, actually the ruling itself, I need the conclusion from a particular evidence to a conclusion.
And this is actually the conclusion is
		
00:29:56 --> 00:29:59
			no point and it is prayer.
		
00:30:00 --> 00:30:11
			Again, as I said, Kenny, I said before, this tells us what is wedges, or whether something is
working for hot or macro MOBA. So we're saying that something is legit. So we know that that is.
		
00:30:18 --> 00:30:23
			Yeah. And in order to derive the conclusions, we have to apply these.
		
00:30:28 --> 00:30:33
			Okay, now getting back to a question that was raised, and also what Hoffman said earlier.
		
00:30:35 --> 00:30:36
			Maybe I should leave
		
00:30:38 --> 00:30:40
			all of these affiliates
		
00:30:41 --> 00:30:42
			and also
		
00:30:44 --> 00:30:46
			they have to have some evidence for them.
		
00:30:50 --> 00:30:51
			And they are not just something
		
00:30:55 --> 00:30:58
			that we just make up. You have to have evidence for them either.
		
00:30:59 --> 00:31:00
			From the Quran
		
00:31:03 --> 00:31:03
			from the Sunnah.
		
00:31:07 --> 00:31:09
			From the Arabic language
		
00:31:15 --> 00:31:17
			number four from
		
00:31:18 --> 00:31:19
			how should I say this?
		
00:31:24 --> 00:31:24
			No.
		
00:31:30 --> 00:31:31
			This is the
		
00:31:33 --> 00:31:35
			luck here. So I don't have to write what these are.
		
00:31:38 --> 00:31:39
			For
		
00:31:41 --> 00:31:44
			general, legal maximum, Max
		
00:31:48 --> 00:31:50
			does not generalize the squares
		
00:31:51 --> 00:31:51
			for those who
		
00:31:53 --> 00:31:53
			have.
		
00:31:55 --> 00:31:55
			What,
		
00:31:59 --> 00:32:00
			irrefutable,
		
00:32:03 --> 00:32:04
			irrefutable luck
		
00:32:06 --> 00:32:06
			or
		
00:32:07 --> 00:32:11
			error airfuel app is not apple in the senses, you know, it is
		
00:32:12 --> 00:32:13
			irrefutable.
		
00:32:16 --> 00:32:20
			For, for example, and obviously, the more proof that something has,
		
00:32:21 --> 00:32:28
			the stronger it will be considered. Some coders really have an approach and all of this.
		
00:32:30 --> 00:32:31
			To give an example,
		
00:32:36 --> 00:32:38
			when we talk about this,
		
00:32:39 --> 00:32:40
			you can't hear
		
00:32:43 --> 00:32:44
			I'm sorry.
		
00:32:46 --> 00:32:47
			Okay.
		
00:32:49 --> 00:32:52
			I'll give you I'll give you three and you give me the proof cover that
		
00:32:54 --> 00:33:01
			there is no, when you talk about when we study at the end of the course, about tech leaf or who's
responsible.
		
00:33:03 --> 00:33:04
			There's a fighter that says
		
00:33:06 --> 00:33:08
			there is no
		
00:33:09 --> 00:33:10
			responsibility
		
00:33:15 --> 00:33:15
			beyond
		
00:33:18 --> 00:33:18
			what
		
00:33:20 --> 00:33:21
			one can bear.
		
00:33:23 --> 00:33:24
			How do you spell bear in this case?
		
00:33:31 --> 00:33:32
			That's an animal.
		
00:33:34 --> 00:33:34
			Okay.
		
00:33:36 --> 00:33:37
			Okay, so we
		
00:33:38 --> 00:33:39
			want to prove for this time
		
00:33:40 --> 00:33:41
			what I mean?
		
00:33:43 --> 00:33:56
			Okay, and the three or four verses in the Quran giving the same meaning? Likely Hola, hedonist. Any
logos? Okay. Very clear. This spider is derived from that evidence.
		
00:33:58 --> 00:33:58
			Okay.
		
00:33:59 --> 00:34:00
			I'll give you another
		
00:34:04 --> 00:34:05
			imperative.
		
00:34:09 --> 00:34:10
			implied
		
00:34:12 --> 00:34:13
			obligation.
		
00:34:16 --> 00:34:17
			What's the proof of that?
		
00:34:20 --> 00:34:22
			Okay, that's proof from every language.
		
00:34:24 --> 00:34:25
			But the proof from soon
		
00:34:34 --> 00:34:35
			so this one otherwise has lost the proof.
		
00:34:39 --> 00:34:46
			Okay, yeah. There's a heavy deposit that says when I already used to do something, then do something
to the
		
00:34:48 --> 00:34:49
			to the best of your ability.
		
00:34:51 --> 00:34:52
			What does the province
		
00:34:54 --> 00:34:56
			say about Miss fleck for example,
		
00:35:01 --> 00:35:10
			When he when he said when he says this janilla devore not to be a hardship on my own, I would order
them to use the miswak before we split off
		
00:35:11 --> 00:35:15
			his statement is telling us that if he orders us to do something it's his obligation
		
00:35:17 --> 00:35:19
			Okay, how about
		
00:35:22 --> 00:35:23
			an order
		
00:35:25 --> 00:35:26
			must be
		
00:35:29 --> 00:35:30
			performed
		
00:35:32 --> 00:35:33
			properly
		
00:35:39 --> 00:35:41
			improperly What does that mean?
		
00:35:48 --> 00:35:51
			nor it must be performed promptly what's the proof of that
		
00:35:53 --> 00:35:54
			logic
		
00:35:55 --> 00:35:56
			irrefutable logic
		
00:35:57 --> 00:36:00
			I don't think Arabic language was
		
00:36:03 --> 00:36:13
			exactly do something and if you tell for example your servant to bring you a glass of water and
after two weeks he comes with a glass of water and he obviously had a he did not
		
00:36:17 --> 00:36:24
			respond to command prompt in the Arabic language and in order is supposed to be performed prompt
		
00:36:28 --> 00:36:30
			Okay, how about this one
		
00:36:35 --> 00:36:36
			to
		
00:36:43 --> 00:36:44
			have
		
00:36:46 --> 00:36:47
			opposite
		
00:36:49 --> 00:36:50
			conclusions about something
		
00:36:55 --> 00:36:58
			obviously conclusions about something one of them must be wrong
		
00:37:10 --> 00:37:11
			irrefutable laws
		
00:37:13 --> 00:37:15
			same was the principle that says that
		
00:37:16 --> 00:37:20
			slavery cannot be ordered to do something and not to do it at the same time.
		
00:37:29 --> 00:37:29
			Okay.
		
00:37:34 --> 00:37:34
			Finally,
		
00:37:42 --> 00:37:45
			if if the explanations are competitive, they're talking about a verse in the Quran
		
00:37:47 --> 00:37:51
			if the Quran is open to more than one meaning or the explanations are compatible,
		
00:37:53 --> 00:37:57
			and he then you might, but here that's why I said they come to opposite conclusion.
		
00:37:58 --> 00:38:01
			They're explaining a verse in the Quran they come to opposite conclusion. I don't think
		
00:38:08 --> 00:38:16
			they use different approaches and one says that philosophy and the other one says this is wrong. Can
you know that that one of them has to be wrong?
		
00:38:19 --> 00:38:21
			At least one of them is wrong.
		
00:38:30 --> 00:38:30
			Okay.
		
00:38:36 --> 00:38:43
			Anything about your process this this to me says that as the opposite conclusion about something one
of them must be wrong.
		
00:38:46 --> 00:38:49
			This shows you Okay, this shows you how dangerous it is to use
		
00:38:51 --> 00:38:52
			something as clear as this
		
00:38:54 --> 00:38:55
			should be one.
		
00:38:56 --> 00:38:58
			If the premises are different.
		
00:38:59 --> 00:39:00
			No.
		
00:39:03 --> 00:39:05
			They might you may
		
00:39:06 --> 00:39:07
			you may
		
00:39:11 --> 00:39:12
			know
		
00:39:14 --> 00:39:22
			the truth is one. If they come to the opposite conclusion, one says the thing is haram, the other
one says this was one of them has to be wrong.
		
00:39:27 --> 00:39:28
			They say My boss is
		
00:39:29 --> 00:39:34
			not talking about the same topic, regardless of how they get to their conclusions. Doesn't matter.
		
00:39:35 --> 00:39:42
			Just Okay, just forget this for a second. If they're talking about the one topic, who cares how they
get to their results.
		
00:39:43 --> 00:39:46
			If they come up with different results, one of them has
		
00:39:47 --> 00:39:48
			nothing to do with
		
00:39:50 --> 00:39:58
			because the logic says if you go from the same, okay, and that's why I said not logic I said
irrefutable logic which is different from much
		
00:40:00 --> 00:40:04
			Logic there's many points in logic one stop scanning which are questionable.
		
00:40:05 --> 00:40:15
			But related to the chromosome that we relate logic to the chromosome that there's some points which
are irrefutable. For example, the truth is one, you cannot say about the same thing
		
00:40:16 --> 00:40:18
			someone says is haram, the other one says,
		
00:40:24 --> 00:40:24
			No.
		
00:40:28 --> 00:40:31
			No, it doesn't have to be. No, doesn't have to be this.
		
00:41:00 --> 00:41:02
			Okay, one of them isn't. One of them is wrong.
		
00:41:07 --> 00:41:22
			That doesn't, that doesn't matter. We're not talking about Danny is the most type Danny, wrong in
his approach or as the atom, we're not talking about it, we're saying that one of them must be
wrong. Because pictures cannot be both halal haram at the same time. There cannot be
		
00:41:25 --> 00:41:35
			any journey before this century, according to our calendar refutable logic, it cannot be unless
there's some new logic nowadays that ilias knows that the rest of us don't know. And it's gonna
		
00:41:39 --> 00:41:40
			be really
		
00:41:42 --> 00:41:43
			hard to work.
		
00:41:45 --> 00:41:45
			When
		
00:41:46 --> 00:41:52
			I'm talking about if you're talking about one topic, and you come to opposite conclusions, and one
of them must be wrong.
		
00:41:56 --> 00:42:05
			So obviously, this point of wanting that, obviously, the first resources, or the first three schools
are much stronger than the fourth proof.
		
00:42:09 --> 00:42:10
			Okay.
		
00:42:11 --> 00:42:16
			However, this may ask, let's confuse everything, everything a little bit more.
		
00:42:17 --> 00:42:24
			There's a, there's, well, let's, let's stop there. I think we've done enough damage for for today.
		
00:42:25 --> 00:42:31
			When asked this question, but I don't know why I'm gonna ask this question. Is this clear?
everything clear? Now.
		
00:42:32 --> 00:42:42
			So much of what we're going to be studying, we're going to be setting the agenda and the code and
the core it has to have some evidence for it. And these are the sources of evidence.
		
00:42:48 --> 00:42:49
			Why is the difference one?
		
00:42:52 --> 00:42:54
			Oh, my boss, he explained that to him and
		
00:42:55 --> 00:43:05
			he said, You and I, we lived at a time when we know what the revelation is talking about. There's
gonna be people coming later, we're going to interpret according to the divine, they don't know what
has been
		
00:43:07 --> 00:43:15
			revealed about and when they read, only interpreted to according to their right, or their opinion,
they're going to differ and they're going to fight
		
00:43:19 --> 00:43:20
			with respect to
		
00:43:21 --> 00:43:25
			sound it still doesn't affect the scanning one of them is wrong. So how about
		
00:43:50 --> 00:43:51
			something What
		
00:43:53 --> 00:43:56
			are you trying to say that we should never use Quran as a delivery?
		
00:44:01 --> 00:44:03
			Okay, this course
		
00:44:04 --> 00:44:16
			this course is going to tell us how to understand the Quran according to the Arabic language, okay.
And it is inshallah going to make things clear. And the Quran is not a book, just anyone can come
and read it.
		
00:44:17 --> 00:44:22
			But it's revealed in Arabic language, and it has yonny principles. And when we talk about
		
00:44:25 --> 00:44:30
			it, we'll go back to the sounds of Sahaba and see why they had some difference of opinion. But it
still doesn't
		
00:44:32 --> 00:44:34
			affect anything we've discussed before.
		
00:44:39 --> 00:44:39
			It is
		
00:44:40 --> 00:44:42
			still going both of them.
		
00:44:44 --> 00:44:44
			Okay.
		
00:44:49 --> 00:44:50
			Okay, so
		
00:44:52 --> 00:44:56
			how do you do it? Was they just been excuses for more