Jamal Zarabozo – Principles Of Fiqh Part 5

Jamal Zarabozo
Share Page

AI: Summary ©

The speakers discuss the history and importance of the concept of the mother of the child, with a focus on the history and importance of acceptance of scientific and political evidence. They stress the need for acceptance and broad support for scientific research, while also acknowledging the need for acceptance of evidence in schools and political proceedings. The speakers briefly touch on the concept of "ile hungry" and its use in scientific research, with a brief discussion on the importance of finding the right point in a statement and clarification. The segment also touches on the use of "one point" in scientific research and its implications for personal and professional life.

AI: Summary ©

00:00:02 --> 00:00:06
			So let's pick up some points about the letter or the methodology.
		
00:00:07 --> 00:00:12
			Again, what is the methodology? And it's been quite some time on it last time. So I hope
		
00:00:14 --> 00:00:14
			everyone knows
		
00:00:16 --> 00:00:17
			what's different between the coupon
		
00:00:19 --> 00:00:19
			and
		
00:00:21 --> 00:00:21
			theologians?
		
00:00:26 --> 00:00:28
			What's the method of the method?
		
00:00:29 --> 00:00:29
			When it comes to?
		
00:00:43 --> 00:00:47
			What did we do last time? We spent about an hour and the last the last 45 minutes?
		
00:00:49 --> 00:00:51
			Showing that there's a couple of approaches to
		
00:00:53 --> 00:00:56
			it. Okay, what is the process of Boko Haram?
		
00:00:57 --> 00:01:00
			And why was Othman so separately? Well, it's definitely done.
		
00:01:07 --> 00:01:17
			Okay, not necessarily, by the way, but they take the opinion of the opinions of them. What is your
honey for Mohammed or Mmm, abusive?
		
00:01:18 --> 00:01:18
			Okay.
		
00:01:20 --> 00:01:29
			They start with these opinions, and they go back from these opinions to figure out what is the soul
of the Hanafi? Mother? You know, why would you do it that way?
		
00:01:30 --> 00:01:32
			What might be the reasoning behind that?
		
00:01:38 --> 00:01:38
			Okay.
		
00:01:39 --> 00:01:43
			Not only that, according to the Hanafi school is the greatest book, however the
		
00:01:45 --> 00:01:46
			world must have
		
00:01:48 --> 00:01:51
			any they should call him or her because they considered me to have to bet.
		
00:01:53 --> 00:01:57
			So if you want to call his mother, you have to figure out what to do
		
00:01:58 --> 00:01:59
			and considered right for you.
		
00:02:01 --> 00:02:01
			You have to figure it out.
		
00:02:03 --> 00:02:06
			Now, I know last time he said that,
		
00:02:07 --> 00:02:08
			he said, How
		
00:02:09 --> 00:02:11
			can he be considered a scholar if he didn't give his
		
00:02:12 --> 00:02:12
			reasoning?
		
00:02:14 --> 00:02:15
			But when you're asked a question,
		
00:02:17 --> 00:02:24
			and you give an answer to a question, there's actually two points. First is the way of the Hanafi,
or the dolphin way of learning.
		
00:02:25 --> 00:02:28
			The Rocky way of learning was different from the jazzy wavelength.
		
00:02:29 --> 00:02:30
			For example, remember,
		
00:02:32 --> 00:02:34
			he used to lecture to the students
		
00:02:35 --> 00:02:38
			come to class, this one
		
00:02:39 --> 00:02:44
			and the illmatic lectures. And in fact, they were very sad to see.
		
00:02:46 --> 00:02:49
			And they would be very happy if someone is some foreigner.
		
00:02:50 --> 00:02:53
			Someone who's not regularly from the meeting would come and ask him a medical question.
		
00:02:55 --> 00:02:59
			That was the jazzy way of teaching it. How is the situation?
		
00:03:00 --> 00:03:01
			What was the Iraq Kuwait,
		
00:03:02 --> 00:03:05
			like our informal
		
00:03:06 --> 00:03:07
			and in the Iraqi way,
		
00:03:08 --> 00:03:13
			basically, is they have a group of people, and they throw out a topic.
		
00:03:15 --> 00:03:23
			And they discuss the topic, everyone gives their views. And the chef at the time, and when it was
Abu hanifa, when he was alive in his
		
00:03:25 --> 00:03:33
			last years, many years, he was the chef of the time. So they would discuss the point. And then he
would at the end, he would give his conclusion.
		
00:03:35 --> 00:03:42
			So when he gives his conclusion, he wouldn't necessarily repeat what everybody said. But he would
give us a conclusion. Now, if you're a writer, and
		
00:03:43 --> 00:03:47
			we want to describe, what are you going to record, what's the most important thing to record?
		
00:03:49 --> 00:03:51
			The most important thing to record is the conclusion.
		
00:03:53 --> 00:03:59
			You're not going to have for example, minutes of the meeting where you include everyone's everyone's
Okay,
		
00:04:00 --> 00:04:06
			that's one point. Second point. If you're asked a question, for example, if I asked you
		
00:04:09 --> 00:04:11
			is the prayer obligatory which is
		
00:04:18 --> 00:04:19
			okay, why?
		
00:04:23 --> 00:04:24
			Okay, what what is in the Quran?
		
00:04:33 --> 00:04:33
			Okay.
		
00:04:34 --> 00:04:36
			Okay, that's the end of your
		
00:04:40 --> 00:04:41
			end of the answer.
		
00:04:44 --> 00:04:50
			In other words, if someone gave you an answer, if you went to a scholar, and you said to him, you
know, the perfect for any suggest because the law says,
		
00:04:51 --> 00:04:52
			Yeah, we're living in a monopoly
		
00:04:53 --> 00:04:55
			Would you accept that from
		
00:05:00 --> 00:05:01
			Kissing, talking to him.
		
00:05:05 --> 00:05:05
			Okay,
		
00:05:06 --> 00:05:12
			but what's missing? I mean, everyone would give you the evidence, and it gives you the conclusion.
		
00:05:13 --> 00:05:14
			But what is missing?
		
00:05:17 --> 00:05:22
			What's missing is the rule or the methodology that you apply. And that's what I tried to figure out.
		
00:05:24 --> 00:05:25
			So the rule that you're applying,
		
00:05:27 --> 00:05:32
			and that case of mine was that Allah subhana wa Jalla orders it, I'm assuming this is what the rule
is.
		
00:05:33 --> 00:05:36
			Allah subhana wa, tada orders us to do something.
		
00:05:37 --> 00:05:47
			And we know based on Quran and Hadith, also, a little bit from Arabic language, we know that in
order implies obligation. Okay.
		
00:05:49 --> 00:05:54
			So you left out that that the reason you left out methodology, but no one's gonna question you.
		
00:05:55 --> 00:06:08
			Okay. Now, the second part now that we figured out that we think we figured out your methodology is
that that's not sufficient for us to derive, for example of man's never going to drive
		
00:06:09 --> 00:06:10
			can take long.
		
00:06:13 --> 00:06:18
			First of all, we reclaim that he says that an order implies.
		
00:06:19 --> 00:06:20
			Again, he didn't say, right.
		
00:06:22 --> 00:06:23
			Maybe perhaps he never said
		
00:06:24 --> 00:06:31
			and that's what the shower Leola wrote. He said most of the points that that was what he was talking
about. Also was naming something.
		
00:06:35 --> 00:06:48
			So we did most of the differences between the canopies and the Sharpies, which some of them we're
going to discuss later. Some of these are some of these principles that make heavily different from
the Sharpies, he said that Abu hanifa never since.
		
00:06:49 --> 00:06:53
			And they're simply based upon the reasoning of the
		
00:06:55 --> 00:06:57
			conclusion, and came up with it.
		
00:07:00 --> 00:07:01
			We're not we're not finished with
		
00:07:03 --> 00:07:04
			Is that sufficient?
		
00:07:05 --> 00:07:13
			Can we say, based on what Othman told us that anytime there's an obligation? I mean, anytime there's
a command and implies obligation?
		
00:07:17 --> 00:07:18
			No. So what do we have to do now?
		
00:07:20 --> 00:07:28
			No, no, we're talking about here. So that's easy. That's the point. They don't, they don't look to
the sun that they've kind of got yours. Or Oh, honey,
		
00:07:31 --> 00:07:34
			what they'd have to do is they have to look at all the statements they can find from you.
		
00:07:36 --> 00:07:38
			in which there's an order and you make a conclusion.
		
00:07:41 --> 00:07:49
			If they do that, obviously, they're going to find that in some cases, there's an order, but Abu
hanifa did not say that the action was was obligatory.
		
00:07:51 --> 00:07:52
			Okay.
		
00:07:53 --> 00:07:57
			For example, you gave us a we'll give an example of that 30 years, this after you finish.
		
00:07:59 --> 00:08:03
			In the Quran, Allah subhanho wa Taala uses an order from fish that you should go out
		
00:08:05 --> 00:08:07
			in the land, but no, one of the LMS
		
00:08:09 --> 00:08:09
			is no one
		
00:08:10 --> 00:08:13
			that's always excluded. Because you can never,
		
00:08:14 --> 00:08:20
			ever say for sure what they might come up with. No one says that the biggest there is. So now we
have to go through all of our statements
		
00:08:22 --> 00:08:28
			and see where there was an order. And he didn't say that the action is obligatory. And we have to
figure out what are the exceptions?
		
00:08:29 --> 00:08:30
			And why are these
		
00:08:32 --> 00:08:33
			in order to come up with
		
00:08:34 --> 00:08:36
			and that's that's kind of the way
		
00:08:37 --> 00:08:46
			and if you pick up the happy book, like goes on the book, supply goes on the list I gave you and in
many times they look more like books or something
		
00:08:48 --> 00:08:49
			that is going to teach different
		
00:08:51 --> 00:08:55
			different points that are being discussed in order to come up with
		
00:08:56 --> 00:08:57
			with his sort of
		
00:09:04 --> 00:09:05
			that
		
00:09:07 --> 00:09:12
			the later if you remember the handout from last time, which was a list of books,
		
00:09:13 --> 00:09:19
			the later half as many of the later had a piece they took a new approach which was combining the
poetry of
		
00:09:21 --> 00:09:23
			theologians on the moon and the focus.
		
00:09:25 --> 00:09:27
			But those are the later
		
00:09:28 --> 00:09:29
			half.
		
00:09:30 --> 00:09:34
			And finally, is there any benefit to this approach?
		
00:09:36 --> 00:09:37
			If there are any benefits with
		
00:09:47 --> 00:09:47
			different words
		
00:09:57 --> 00:09:58
			actually even
		
00:10:06 --> 00:10:08
			One is inductive and one is either
		
00:10:11 --> 00:10:15
			one, you're starting with the conclusion, and working your way back, just to
		
00:10:16 --> 00:10:18
			see the other end in some of the other books
		
00:10:19 --> 00:10:22
			by the moon, they rarely discussed.
		
00:10:23 --> 00:10:27
			And that's maybe to give an example. There's almost pure theory.
		
00:10:28 --> 00:10:30
			And based on Chrome
		
00:10:33 --> 00:10:39
			now the beta books that combine both, they tried to go from the ferry down to the sub.
		
00:10:53 --> 00:10:57
			That's what I said, you have to assume that the Hanafi madhhab, is correct.
		
00:11:00 --> 00:11:09
			That's why I said this in the book by Luca, Luca, that his statement is not strange. If you think
about where he's coming from. He was an American.
		
00:11:13 --> 00:11:22
			You think about where he's coming from when he when he says that any verse or heat that goes into
our mother is either abrogated or must be reinterpreted.
		
00:11:23 --> 00:11:23
			I mentioned that
		
00:11:26 --> 00:11:28
			they are assuming they have to assume
		
00:11:29 --> 00:11:31
			that the head of the mother of is correct.
		
00:11:33 --> 00:11:37
			The others, all of the others are almost completely independent of
		
00:11:41 --> 00:11:47
			any others, for example, a mama's boy, if you read his book,
		
00:11:48 --> 00:11:55
			which is considered one of the standard works of close up from the caffeine and have, he disagrees a
lot within them.
		
00:11:56 --> 00:12:05
			And that is the nature of the other work, they are not confined to matter, they are free to use
their mind to come up with any conclusion that they want. But this is not the case with the heavy
metals.
		
00:12:06 --> 00:12:19
			And, and as many scholars including Amazon, Hanafi, scholars, and so on the a lot. This This way,
the Hanafi way was developed in order to defend the humans.
		
00:12:22 --> 00:12:31
			So they were some writers I see. And they they were, they were sticking to their mother. And this
way was developed in order to defend them.
		
00:12:44 --> 00:12:44
			Without
		
00:12:50 --> 00:12:53
			that, basically, except for maybe as a voting
		
00:12:54 --> 00:12:56
			member who see, the others were basically
		
00:12:58 --> 00:13:03
			trying to show or trying to defend the heavy weight, and coming up with their own food,
		
00:13:13 --> 00:13:19
			of course, is one of the greatest koca of history is the image of himself.
		
00:13:21 --> 00:13:23
			So we benefit, we not happy
		
00:13:24 --> 00:13:24
			thing, we
		
00:13:25 --> 00:13:27
			then have nothing other than listening to.
		
00:13:29 --> 00:13:31
			Okay, we're not happy.
		
00:13:32 --> 00:13:34
			We benefit from that, because we can learn from
		
00:13:37 --> 00:13:39
			this because it does not have doesn't mean it's always wrong.
		
00:13:43 --> 00:13:52
			I mean, we agree we benefit from the reasoning about what it is. And in some cases of reasoning
might be better than the other. And therefore we accepted this.
		
00:14:00 --> 00:14:00
			No,
		
00:14:02 --> 00:14:05
			no, no. There's no such thing as
		
00:14:06 --> 00:14:08
			the door to his dad was never closed and
		
00:14:09 --> 00:14:14
			the best work that came after the so called door fish to have
		
00:14:15 --> 00:14:20
			and even those people who believed in the blade, and they said that
		
00:14:21 --> 00:14:23
			the police are blindly following a school
		
00:14:25 --> 00:14:32
			because to them, and also, Herman was one of them. Was that he? And he could have demo So the trick
is like
		
00:14:34 --> 00:14:35
			there's no such thing as
		
00:14:41 --> 00:14:42
			we're not talking about
		
00:14:45 --> 00:14:45
			when we
		
00:14:48 --> 00:14:48
			had a few minutes
		
00:14:59 --> 00:14:59
			day
		
00:15:00 --> 00:15:01
			But what happened?
		
00:15:05 --> 00:15:05
			And
		
00:15:12 --> 00:15:14
			that's true, but not.
		
00:15:16 --> 00:15:18
			I mean, what I'm trying to say is that the discussion,
		
00:15:20 --> 00:15:21
			even the arguments about what is correct.
		
00:15:24 --> 00:15:27
			And you know that people are free to discuss this.
		
00:15:28 --> 00:15:29
			This continues until today.
		
00:15:31 --> 00:15:31
			Because
		
00:15:36 --> 00:15:44
			that's, that's a different problem. That's a different problem. They were prevented from preventing
it from implementing it. Okay.
		
00:15:45 --> 00:15:49
			Some of them, not all of them, but in general, during the period of the darkest times,
		
00:15:50 --> 00:15:52
			they were prevented from
		
00:15:53 --> 00:15:57
			applying it in public, but not about writing about it.
		
00:15:59 --> 00:16:13
			That's one way to escape that policing, that the police situation is in your book, you write about
it under different topics. And you're making a new wish you had but no one noticed. Because you're
not going to the Martin thing. It's in football.
		
00:16:17 --> 00:16:19
			But that's all we're gonna cover about the history of
		
00:16:21 --> 00:16:24
			that plenty, three lessons, two and a half minutes. Any questions about it?
		
00:16:26 --> 00:16:29
			Before we begin the load? evidence?
		
00:16:32 --> 00:16:33
			Question. Now.
		
00:16:38 --> 00:16:39
			Let's move on.
		
00:16:41 --> 00:16:46
			Basically, there's four types of evidence that are agreed upon by all the scores.
		
00:16:47 --> 00:16:50
			What are those words come directly out of the human service.
		
00:17:07 --> 00:17:17
			These are not necessarily the only sources of food, but these are the four agreed upon sources and
the other sources kind of kind of fit underneath.
		
00:17:18 --> 00:17:23
			For example, there have been a they put lots of stress on statements of the hava
		
00:17:25 --> 00:17:29
			mall. My argument is that the statement of Zahava comes under these,
		
00:17:31 --> 00:17:32
			I mean, in this word,
		
00:17:35 --> 00:17:37
			once it once it
		
00:17:41 --> 00:17:47
			comes basically over here, because the reason that the Sahaba are given the status that they're
given, is because
		
00:17:49 --> 00:17:52
			and it is based on the fact that they got the teachings from the Prophet Mohammed.
		
00:17:54 --> 00:18:03
			And therefore, they are understanding this and that, and when they act, it is considered to be under
the guidance of the of the some of the problems
		
00:18:04 --> 00:18:08
			of the for example, muscle muscle has not here, but also
		
00:18:10 --> 00:18:10
			our muscle has
		
00:18:12 --> 00:18:15
			it in a little way. And
		
00:18:17 --> 00:18:18
			and you could argue this
		
00:18:20 --> 00:18:23
			and there's one verse in the Quran, basically, that covers all four of these
		
00:18:24 --> 00:18:29
			images to be you know, this is the explanation of this verse in the Quran.
		
00:18:31 --> 00:18:33
			one verse points to all four
		
00:18:39 --> 00:18:39
			for
		
00:18:41 --> 00:18:42
			one verse,
		
00:18:50 --> 00:18:51
			I prefer
		
00:18:52 --> 00:18:54
			they still continue to.
		
00:19:11 --> 00:19:13
			Okay, the first which is
		
00:19:15 --> 00:19:15
			sort of
		
00:19:19 --> 00:19:20
			with numbers.
		
00:19:21 --> 00:19:25
			I hate that when people ask me in the lecture, yeah. What's that? What number
		
00:19:29 --> 00:19:40
			so the verse says, Are you will believe obey Allah and the messenger, and those in authority among
you. And if you differ in any matters, then take it to Allah and His messenger.
		
00:19:42 --> 00:19:44
			So it says obey Allah,
		
00:19:45 --> 00:19:47
			clearly obeying the Quran
		
00:19:49 --> 00:19:50
			and then it will be the messenger.
		
00:19:53 --> 00:19:53
			And then here comes
		
00:19:55 --> 00:19:55
			what it was
		
00:19:59 --> 00:19:59
			for
		
00:20:00 --> 00:20:00
			I'm an admin
		
00:20:03 --> 00:20:07
			for example, if the scores agree on something there you should follow them
		
00:20:11 --> 00:20:12
			more so than
		
00:20:15 --> 00:20:18
			and then things in exactly the same.
		
00:20:20 --> 00:20:30
			Okay, what does it mean you need to if you if you different something refers to Allah and His
Messenger okay? It means that while their life you take it to the pub,
		
00:20:31 --> 00:20:51
			but after their death, any of you different something, obviously if something is clear from the
Quran, Sunnah, you can differ. Okay. So if you're deficient in something, you should be something
not clear from a chromosomal. So when it says take it to the chromosome, that means that you are
going to have to take your case and look, apply it to what the Quran says. So that covers
		
00:20:53 --> 00:20:53
			so
		
00:20:55 --> 00:21:02
			is disappeared. So we can change the name of this class, and we'll set this up to see it. So we're
just going to do the state of Wonder
		
00:21:05 --> 00:21:06
			now that
		
00:21:07 --> 00:21:08
			the Texas evidence
		
00:21:09 --> 00:21:13
			can be divided into many different categories.
		
00:21:24 --> 00:21:24
			One
		
00:21:26 --> 00:21:28
			is transmitted
		
00:21:33 --> 00:21:34
			versus
		
00:21:37 --> 00:21:38
			as opposed to not versus
		
00:21:41 --> 00:21:42
			what do I mean by transmitted
		
00:21:46 --> 00:21:47
			disease
		
00:21:50 --> 00:21:50
			transmitted
		
00:21:51 --> 00:21:55
			as opposed to versus what I mean as opposed to
		
00:22:01 --> 00:22:02
			an athlete?
		
00:22:04 --> 00:22:05
			What's our
		
00:22:06 --> 00:22:06
			evidence
		
00:22:12 --> 00:22:14
			to understand marriage we have drawn
		
00:22:24 --> 00:22:25
			a deal
		
00:22:35 --> 00:22:36
			something transmitted
		
00:22:37 --> 00:22:40
			once it's finished, and it is final.
		
00:22:43 --> 00:22:44
			The point about these three
		
00:22:47 --> 00:22:52
			is that regardless of whether we actually understand them completely,
		
00:22:54 --> 00:22:59
			regardless of whether we can rationalize their existence, we have to follow
		
00:23:02 --> 00:23:09
			these these types of proof we have to follow regardless of whether we have a complete understanding
of them.
		
00:23:13 --> 00:23:16
			In other words, these are unquestionable authority.
		
00:23:27 --> 00:23:31
			They are established to be true, they are unquestionable authority.
		
00:23:33 --> 00:23:49
			They cannot go to the province as an example. And say that I don't understand is heavy. So I don't
see how this heavy could be applied nowadays. So now for something I am therefore reject the
unquestionable authorities that we have to submit to until the DOJ.
		
00:23:53 --> 00:23:54
			Okay, how about rational?
		
00:24:06 --> 00:24:10
			Okay, pretty much, pretty much, many of the others.
		
00:24:14 --> 00:24:15
			Everyone's favorite now.
		
00:24:22 --> 00:24:24
			If you don't understand these terms completely now.
		
00:24:30 --> 00:24:34
			Now there's also some other kinds of trends and reports but they are not of the same authority as
these.
		
00:24:35 --> 00:24:36
			For example, if given
		
00:24:37 --> 00:24:40
			the transmitted food but it doesn't have carries the same weight.
		
00:24:43 --> 00:24:46
			Now the question here is, is Apple or rationality
		
00:24:48 --> 00:24:48
			by
		
00:24:50 --> 00:24:50
			source of law
		
00:24:57 --> 00:24:58
			and it can you base something
		
00:25:00 --> 00:25:02
			Usually on Apple arrest press
		
00:25:05 --> 00:25:05
			No.
		
00:25:06 --> 00:25:07
			So, how are you how are you going to do it?
		
00:25:12 --> 00:25:13
			Okay.
		
00:25:15 --> 00:25:19
			And all of these types of proofs, directional proofs are actually dependent
		
00:25:20 --> 00:25:22
			upon the relationship to the transmitted
		
00:25:25 --> 00:25:27
			as one person wrote in the book of
		
00:25:29 --> 00:25:29
			talking about
		
00:25:34 --> 00:25:37
			the pub. So that again difficult wrong by the way,
		
00:25:39 --> 00:25:42
			he said these are all, basically rationalist doctrines.
		
00:25:45 --> 00:25:55
			Then he writes rational rationality alone is not an independent proof in Islam. In other words, you
cannot come up with something and just try to prove it rationally and expect or saying that this
		
00:25:57 --> 00:25:57
			should be applied.
		
00:26:00 --> 00:26:07
			So, this is why rational proofs cannot be totally separated from the transmitter pool. And the
classic example of this.
		
00:26:10 --> 00:26:11
			Obviously, you cannot make
		
00:26:13 --> 00:26:15
			without reference to sentiment,
		
00:26:19 --> 00:26:20
			you're making chaos and what
		
00:26:24 --> 00:26:28
			you're basing your fears obviously on a verse in the Quran or Hadith.
		
00:26:29 --> 00:26:44
			So, all these rational proofs for rationality is not by itself an independent proof they are
dependent upon their relationship to the transmitted food. Otherwise, if you can find evidence for
some rational argument in the Quran,
		
00:26:45 --> 00:26:48
			then you could argue that that is to be followed.
		
00:26:54 --> 00:26:54
			Talk
		
00:27:07 --> 00:27:08
			about power.
		
00:27:11 --> 00:27:11
			Okay.
		
00:27:15 --> 00:27:17
			And anyone who does that with respect to
		
00:27:22 --> 00:27:24
			what anyone who does what he says?
		
00:27:26 --> 00:27:27
			Or you just know,
		
00:27:30 --> 00:27:32
			you don't understand is out during an accident?
		
00:27:35 --> 00:27:37
			He said, he said, suppose
		
00:27:38 --> 00:27:41
			what about the opposite way? That you go through these rules?
		
00:27:43 --> 00:27:44
			And you judge it in the likes of apple?
		
00:27:45 --> 00:27:47
			And you decide whether to accept or not?
		
00:27:50 --> 00:27:51
			What do you say exactly?
		
00:27:54 --> 00:27:56
			We have it on tape, by the way.
		
00:28:01 --> 00:28:02
			You don't find something
		
00:28:07 --> 00:28:08
			and you go
		
00:28:10 --> 00:28:12
			and you don't even
		
00:28:13 --> 00:28:14
			measure.
		
00:28:19 --> 00:28:20
			We have witnesses.
		
00:28:31 --> 00:28:32
			As
		
00:28:33 --> 00:28:36
			I'm speaking out for him, like the heresies made ahead of us,
		
00:28:37 --> 00:28:40
			speaking very much just to be if you're at that point, it means you're not good.
		
00:28:46 --> 00:28:51
			Enough for every aspect of life. If you go to the person and you don't find anything.
		
00:28:52 --> 00:28:53
			This means
		
00:28:54 --> 00:28:54
			something wrong with you.
		
00:29:04 --> 00:29:05
			Oh, there's many, many verses.
		
00:29:10 --> 00:29:19
			Okay, I don't accept that verse. Because I believe this verse is not referring to the Quran. If you
read the whole I'm not referring to the Koran. But anyway, that's another argument.
		
00:29:20 --> 00:29:22
			But back to what you originally said
		
00:29:24 --> 00:29:28
			that you cannot just be on the basis with one except
		
00:29:30 --> 00:29:31
			there's one exception. What's that?
		
00:29:35 --> 00:29:36
			What about
		
00:29:41 --> 00:29:51
			now, there's one exception with respect to this and that and of course, it has to be done by the
experts, and heavy and that is if there's a heavy
		
00:29:52 --> 00:29:54
			that undoubtedly goes against,
		
00:29:55 --> 00:30:00
			like what I wrote 30 irrefutable laws or something different.
		
00:30:00 --> 00:30:13
			We can deny without any question that there was not a theory on our part. But something that we can
deny without being quick. Like a Hadees that says that after 100 years the day of judgment will come
what we know now 1400 years ago
		
00:30:14 --> 00:30:15
			okay
		
00:30:16 --> 00:30:18
			this is a sign that the Hadees the separatists
		
00:30:21 --> 00:30:31
			ever been to Josie wrote an ad that clearly goes against what we know to be correct. Get noctor
select some people with the headache
		
00:30:32 --> 00:30:33
			of the fly.
		
00:30:34 --> 00:30:47
			And if you put the fly is the fly get your drink he just put it in completely. And he This is now a
theory to say oh, this heady doesn't make any sense. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking
about something that is proven. That is not correct. This is a sign that
		
00:30:49 --> 00:30:52
			they but obviously with respect to the Quran, and it has no
		
00:30:54 --> 00:30:55
			arguments.
		
00:30:56 --> 00:30:59
			Because we know that all this is correct.
		
00:31:04 --> 00:31:05
			For sure.
		
00:31:08 --> 00:31:11
			No, no, no, no, they'll fabricate I said that's the sign that the editor fabricate.
		
00:31:14 --> 00:31:19
			The Headless nurse doesn't mean anything. The Headless nurse doesn't mean anything.
		
00:31:20 --> 00:31:27
			Suppose Okay, I'm going to fabricate a heavy Okay, so I pick the best is not adequate. Obviously.
		
00:31:28 --> 00:31:34
			The Golden thing is I take a knife from sad from homicide from from
		
00:31:42 --> 00:31:46
			so if I'm going to fabricate it, I'm going to give it the best thing I can
		
00:32:00 --> 00:32:01
			Yeah, I've you know, I'm a fabric I
		
00:32:04 --> 00:32:16
			have you know that the fabric is one of the ways that knowing that I'm a fabricator is that I
transmit techies from people who are trustworthy, trustworthy, and their ideas are known and they're
unfortunately the ideas that are no not
		
00:32:29 --> 00:32:38
			okay, let me put it let me let me put it this way, a different way. Okay. When this causes
headaches, like the ones you mentioned, when they did it, they also use this.
		
00:32:39 --> 00:32:40
			So for example, if
		
00:32:41 --> 00:32:42
			it contradicts the Quran
		
00:32:44 --> 00:32:47
			contradicts the Quran are confident that they will reject it.
		
00:32:50 --> 00:32:50
			No,
		
00:32:51 --> 00:32:52
			anyone can make mistakes.
		
00:32:59 --> 00:33:05
			I gave one example about the segment coming 100 years after the prophet and we know that's not true.
		
00:33:11 --> 00:33:12
			And it contradicts
		
00:33:14 --> 00:33:14
			No, there is no
		
00:33:16 --> 00:33:16
			okay.
		
00:33:25 --> 00:33:25
			Because
		
00:33:29 --> 00:33:30
			as I said,
		
00:33:31 --> 00:33:37
			if the rejection is based on a theory, we don't accept we don't accept or reject that is not
sufficient grounds to resist
		
00:33:45 --> 00:33:47
			when you say that, no one
		
00:33:51 --> 00:33:51
			is one
		
00:33:55 --> 00:33:55
			who says
		
00:33:57 --> 00:33:57
			okay,
		
00:33:59 --> 00:33:59
			this
		
00:34:01 --> 00:34:01
			assembly line
		
00:34:04 --> 00:34:08
			this rule that has some some evidence for us in the from the damages
		
00:34:15 --> 00:34:16
			Wow, that's heavy man.
		
00:34:41 --> 00:34:42
			And I think this rule there's some
		
00:34:45 --> 00:34:52
			we know that what the what what the Bible says Dylan, for example, that is true, then we know that
what he's saying is revelation from Allah subhanaw taala.
		
00:34:54 --> 00:34:59
			So if that's the case, if we if if someone says that he says something that we know for certain
		
00:35:00 --> 00:35:00
			It's
		
00:35:01 --> 00:35:02
			not based on the theory again,
		
00:35:03 --> 00:35:08
			definition of a theory means it's testable. Something is a theory means you don't know whether it's
true or false. So
		
00:35:09 --> 00:35:11
			think about an established fact.
		
00:35:14 --> 00:35:18
			What you mean by a sentence like most scientific facts are theories? They're not facts.
		
00:35:22 --> 00:35:32
			Okay, okay. I'm not saying I'm not saying logic as, as the science of luck. Okay? I'm saying, for
example, like the example I gave, if someone tells you,
		
00:35:34 --> 00:35:38
			there's someone tells you that the Prophet said that the date is normal for 100 years after his
death,
		
00:35:39 --> 00:35:55
			if you if you want to look at the tape, and now, obviously, there's other things, it's like they
pointed out to pointed out that he goes ahead, the person that is headed comes from most likely is
going to be questioned runaway. And there's other signs involved, but forget that. This is not a
question of logic or not.
		
00:35:57 --> 00:35:58
			Common sense.
		
00:36:03 --> 00:36:08
			If I, if I told you that the Prophet said after 100 years, the day of judgment will occur.
		
00:36:09 --> 00:36:12
			And we know now, after 1400 years, it hasn't occurred.
		
00:36:13 --> 00:36:16
			So we reject that, not based on on
		
00:36:17 --> 00:36:20
			if you want to call it the science of logic, but it's based on something that's
		
00:36:26 --> 00:36:28
			the logical problem is is the science of logic
		
00:36:29 --> 00:36:30
			and common sense.
		
00:36:31 --> 00:36:33
			Sometimes the logicians are the last ones to have
		
00:36:36 --> 00:36:37
			to study logic.
		
00:36:40 --> 00:36:40
			Okay.
		
00:36:44 --> 00:36:45
			I'm sorry, what was the
		
00:36:48 --> 00:36:49
			panel?
		
00:37:11 --> 00:37:17
			Okay, I'm just talking about one small point. So for example, the fact that if there's someone whose
character is
		
00:37:19 --> 00:37:31
			not good, or we have some doubt about his character, this person brought about the deposit comes to
you. And you have to confirm which also gives us similar means. So now, so if you learn about
different rules,
		
00:37:33 --> 00:37:37
			there's evidence for every rule, we discussed some of them last year.
		
00:37:43 --> 00:38:00
			So anyway, the important thing to realize here is that this is the transmitted truth, or
unquestionable authority. And we have to accept them. While the other rational proofs, they are not
independent proof, they are still have to refer back to the transmitted proof.
		
00:38:09 --> 00:38:10
			no reference to it.
		
00:38:14 --> 00:38:16
			There's no money in the game.
		
00:38:17 --> 00:38:19
			If you're going to make a statement or claim something you have
		
00:38:22 --> 00:38:22
			to be
		
00:38:23 --> 00:38:24
			right.
		
00:38:25 --> 00:38:31
			So someone tells you something and he gives you no evidence for it, no acceptable evidence and you
don't accept what is
		
00:38:33 --> 00:38:34
			the kind of situation
		
00:38:47 --> 00:38:48
			with a spectrum of presets.
		
00:38:50 --> 00:38:54
			There's, there's a type which is clear from the Quran, and the Sunnah.
		
00:38:55 --> 00:38:58
			There's a tag which is clearly rejected from the Quran.
		
00:39:00 --> 00:39:02
			And there's a tag in between
		
00:39:03 --> 00:39:05
			the tags in between is what they call Muslim.
		
00:39:06 --> 00:39:10
			But even that ties in between actually had some evidence, for example,
		
00:39:13 --> 00:39:22
			evidence may not be great, but you can see for example, many NGOs when they talk about this concept,
Muslim Ursula, they talk about the
		
00:39:23 --> 00:39:24
			Sahaba collecting the Quran.
		
00:39:26 --> 00:39:27
			The the Prophet president did not do it.
		
00:39:28 --> 00:39:31
			There's no clear evidence from the Quran that they should have done.
		
00:39:33 --> 00:39:45
			But there's many evidences that for example, the was the duty of the Sava to pass on that was the
duty of the Sahaba to preserve the game is the duty of the Sahaba to study the Quran. And
		
00:39:46 --> 00:39:51
			so when you collect the Quran, you're actually doing something that is benefiting all of these
Islamic principles.
		
00:39:52 --> 00:39:54
			So and you will not find
		
00:39:55 --> 00:39:58
			that there is no you cannot find any evidence for it unless you like
		
00:40:03 --> 00:40:04
			Any other question?
		
00:40:06 --> 00:40:08
			Yes, as we go through these so quickly, but
		
00:40:11 --> 00:40:13
			but that's fine because I don't have much material anyway. So I'm trying to
		
00:40:18 --> 00:40:22
			another category another way of dividing up evidence is to be
		
00:40:25 --> 00:40:26
			independent
		
00:40:27 --> 00:40:28
			evidences
		
00:40:31 --> 00:40:32
			are as opposed to
		
00:40:35 --> 00:40:35
			dependent.
		
00:40:40 --> 00:40:42
			This is vs. But I don't really mean versus
		
00:40:47 --> 00:40:48
			what do we mean here?
		
00:40:53 --> 00:40:58
			It is completely different from this one. One way of looking at what's another sense, it's almost
the same as
		
00:41:04 --> 00:41:05
			if you remember what I was saying about.
		
00:41:13 --> 00:41:14
			That's what I'm trying to get to.
		
00:41:19 --> 00:41:22
			Okay, you know, what independent means. And you know, what dependencies are?
		
00:41:26 --> 00:41:31
			Okay. There's some pieces of evidence that if you're given those pieces of evidence,
		
00:41:32 --> 00:41:34
			there are sufficient in themselves.
		
00:41:37 --> 00:41:46
			They're not necessary, but they're sufficient. not always necessary. But if you're given that
evidence is sufficient and doesn't need any other, for example, the Quran
		
00:41:56 --> 00:41:56
			What about
		
00:41:58 --> 00:42:01
			an independent source or as a dependent source?
		
00:42:06 --> 00:42:08
			Suppose you're from the mother
		
00:42:09 --> 00:42:10
			or the school?
		
00:42:11 --> 00:42:16
			That does it, every exam must have some basis for some evidence from it.
		
00:42:20 --> 00:42:23
			Okay, some people say that every man
		
00:42:25 --> 00:42:29
			was one of them, has to have some support, or be based on something
		
00:42:32 --> 00:42:32
			every man
		
00:42:36 --> 00:42:42
			hate that when teachers do that on the board, when they write, start writing, and then they put
words before and after? Because always when you're reading your notes,
		
00:42:44 --> 00:42:47
			everything must be based on that, honestly.
		
00:42:49 --> 00:42:55
			That's what I've been saying is this, for example, he said something rather based on it. We may have
lost the Hadees
		
00:42:57 --> 00:43:01
			I don't agree with that statement. He says we may not know or at least we may not know the basis for
us.
		
00:43:03 --> 00:43:03
			But we have
		
00:43:05 --> 00:43:08
			been thinking about this knows is my independent or dependent.
		
00:43:11 --> 00:43:11
			But
		
00:43:12 --> 00:43:14
			once they've heard me
		
00:43:16 --> 00:43:19
			it is no longer rest upon the Quran.
		
00:43:20 --> 00:43:21
			So it is in the
		
00:43:28 --> 00:43:32
			know what it was made is an independent source. In other words,
		
00:43:35 --> 00:43:35
			no.
		
00:43:38 --> 00:43:40
			Know In other words, with respect to
		
00:43:41 --> 00:43:43
			something you don't have to know what was the source of
		
00:43:45 --> 00:43:45
			your
		
00:43:52 --> 00:43:52
			cause?
		
00:43:56 --> 00:43:56
			Yes,
		
00:43:57 --> 00:43:59
			that's why if you're from the school
		
00:44:01 --> 00:44:01
			that's why the
		
00:44:03 --> 00:44:07
			Okay, from the defendant school, over here.
		
00:44:10 --> 00:44:19
			Over here, obviously, every source of law or every form of evidence that needs to have some proof
for it from the Quran was in there.
		
00:44:20 --> 00:44:22
			So pretty much the same as what we had
		
00:44:36 --> 00:44:37
			is the dean of the school so
		
00:44:39 --> 00:44:39
			that
		
00:44:41 --> 00:44:41
			is
		
00:44:45 --> 00:44:48
			a that is not necessary. For the it must be based on
		
00:44:50 --> 00:44:58
			others, actually the other dogs and from another point of view, they argue actually, that it's not
possible that you're going to have love is not based on
		
00:44:59 --> 00:44:59
			that. I should tell you
		
00:45:02 --> 00:45:03
			Not only now but maybe when we get to the
		
00:45:05 --> 00:45:05
			end
		
00:45:14 --> 00:45:15
			we'll get to that.
		
00:45:25 --> 00:45:29
			Trying to prove his school obviously, we know what schooling is that
		
00:45:30 --> 00:45:36
			as a system sort of thing, there has to be evidence stated in the case of ID and
		
00:45:37 --> 00:45:37
			the
		
00:45:39 --> 00:45:43
			fogging of the of the of the alcohol drinker there is evidence
		
00:45:44 --> 00:45:47
			because it was based on fear. Which
		
00:45:49 --> 00:45:50
			which pipeline?
		
00:45:56 --> 00:46:00
			What do you mean by which, for example, in this case, okay, then
		
00:46:03 --> 00:46:13
			that was made during the time was that the one who drinks alcohol? What is the punishment for the
one for example? Okay, first of all, what was the punishment during the perfect
		
00:46:19 --> 00:46:21
			time deposit, and during the time of the book,
		
00:46:23 --> 00:46:24
			The punishment was not fixed.
		
00:46:26 --> 00:46:29
			Sometimes it was 40 bugs, sometimes it was less than fences more,
		
00:46:32 --> 00:46:32
			because I
		
00:46:34 --> 00:46:35
			wasn't
		
00:46:36 --> 00:46:37
			looking for these things.
		
00:46:39 --> 00:46:39
			But it was
		
00:46:41 --> 00:46:43
			it was bigger than what we're discussing.
		
00:46:45 --> 00:46:46
			And it wasn't.
		
00:46:49 --> 00:46:52
			Okay, so you're saying this is my grandson?
		
00:46:54 --> 00:46:55
			Now, that's if you said
		
00:46:57 --> 00:47:00
			that, okay, you say there's no evidence for it, but in fact it
		
00:47:13 --> 00:47:15
			But let's get back to this,
		
00:47:16 --> 00:47:18
			he made an important point.
		
00:47:21 --> 00:47:22
			Because of
		
00:47:23 --> 00:47:24
			all the tools and all the
		
00:47:25 --> 00:47:25
			rest,
		
00:47:27 --> 00:47:28
			there is some evidence
		
00:47:29 --> 00:47:30
			that
		
00:47:31 --> 00:47:38
			On that note, I explained that for the consumption on the house with him,
		
00:47:39 --> 00:47:41
			and so, that was it was
		
00:47:44 --> 00:47:45
			there will be no punishment.
		
00:47:47 --> 00:47:48
			Now,
		
00:47:51 --> 00:47:55
			because this was tested as to how to how to be treated,
		
00:47:56 --> 00:47:58
			and so, we are looking for
		
00:48:00 --> 00:48:02
			that impact fact, the fact
		
00:48:05 --> 00:48:10
			that the explanation was given that punishment of offenders is helping shape
		
00:48:12 --> 00:48:13
			and so
		
00:48:15 --> 00:48:16
			according to
		
00:48:19 --> 00:48:22
			that, know, you have that
		
00:48:24 --> 00:48:26
			punishment somehow
		
00:48:29 --> 00:48:30
			and we have a practice
		
00:48:33 --> 00:48:35
			that we have concrete evidence in practice.
		
00:48:38 --> 00:48:38
			matter
		
00:48:39 --> 00:48:47
			the case you're referring to as a different case, the case referred to as a case where someone
drinks and it's not proven explanatory that
		
00:48:48 --> 00:48:52
			that's what the heck is about is about the effect is a very harsh
		
00:48:53 --> 00:49:04
			which most of the sources on software abrogated by the person and said, if the person drinks one,
you should fly him to drink again, you should throw them to drink again, you should probably take
the first time.
		
00:49:09 --> 00:49:11
			This has been an episode
		
00:49:13 --> 00:49:14
			and I think you'll find this in
		
00:49:16 --> 00:49:16
			English.
		
00:49:22 --> 00:49:25
			Okay, so back to this now back to
		
00:49:29 --> 00:49:32
			the made a prayer on what you mean now's your own
		
00:49:37 --> 00:49:39
			image analogy of fatherhood is
		
00:49:40 --> 00:49:45
			that the Father, the one who made karate is supposed to be taught at times.
		
00:49:47 --> 00:49:48
			So it says the one who drinks
		
00:49:49 --> 00:49:58
			he speaks and when he speaks to Mexico, so he should be. So that is the punishment that they agreed
upon. Before that time, it was like
		
00:49:59 --> 00:50:00
			yesterday
		
00:50:00 --> 00:50:01
			as best they can.
		
00:50:03 --> 00:50:19
			So the question is what that is actually based on? No, no, no. You said no before 911. It says that
when the person drinks, he starts to talk. And he when he talks, he's saying things which
		
00:50:20 --> 00:50:23
			I don't remember his exact wording, but it goes like this.
		
00:50:24 --> 00:50:25
			Now, but then
		
00:50:27 --> 00:50:28
			there's the retreatants
		
00:50:53 --> 00:50:55
			is a limit prescribed by law.
		
00:50:59 --> 00:50:59
			But that
		
00:51:01 --> 00:51:02
			cannot be done by fear.
		
00:51:06 --> 00:51:09
			In other words, you apply the same rule to a similar situation,
		
00:51:11 --> 00:51:22
			which is slightly different than what they when they say that you cannot make by hand or illegal
punishment, like those described in the Quran, but he had a thing that you cannot bring a new
		
00:51:24 --> 00:51:28
			punishment, or a new fact. And it was something that Allah subhanaw taala does not prescribe.
		
00:51:30 --> 00:51:33
			But if you have a case, which is similar to the ones that I've described,
		
00:51:34 --> 00:51:36
			then you may use the symphony.
		
00:51:38 --> 00:51:42
			See the difference between the two? Okay, for example, what God is not
		
00:51:43 --> 00:51:46
			prescribing for what? Quick?
		
00:51:49 --> 00:51:57
			Okay, remember, for example, we cannot, we cannot now make a specific shape is 40 or 60. Unless it's
based on
		
00:51:58 --> 00:52:05
			we're saying we have a similar case like it, saying that the one who drinks next, so therefore, we
function the same way.
		
00:52:07 --> 00:52:13
			See the difference between if someone kills or someone wants to kill, party to kill is not directly
mentioned in the crime.
		
00:52:15 --> 00:52:21
			But if someone has a hand in killing someone else, even though he's not the killer, according to our
hotel, he gets the same husband.
		
00:52:23 --> 00:52:27
			He did not make the no punishment, but he's saying that this has applied to this case.
		
00:52:29 --> 00:52:29
			This is called
		
00:52:31 --> 00:52:32
			blind had.
		
00:52:37 --> 00:52:40
			No, once this was made, you have to vote.
		
00:52:44 --> 00:52:48
			I was trying to give an example of ignite which is not based on
		
00:52:49 --> 00:52:49
			some old
		
00:52:50 --> 00:52:53
			example said every is not based on promises.
		
00:52:56 --> 00:52:58
			It's not the one who drinks alcohol, it was
		
00:53:00 --> 00:53:02
			based on the punishment for column ad.
		
00:53:08 --> 00:53:09
			similarity is in the sense that
		
00:53:10 --> 00:53:12
			the episode value statement
		
00:53:32 --> 00:53:32
			doesn't mean
		
00:53:35 --> 00:53:36
			that's why I'm avoiding
		
00:53:51 --> 00:53:52
			the type of pleasure
		
00:53:53 --> 00:53:54
			to be punished
		
00:53:55 --> 00:53:56
			by Coca Cola calling.
		
00:54:06 --> 00:54:08
			From the other side, this is what
		
00:54:11 --> 00:54:12
			you gave us.
		
00:54:15 --> 00:54:18
			It doesn't have to, doesn't have to have a source and
		
00:54:21 --> 00:54:25
			we'll get to that more when we talk about if we ever get to
		
00:54:26 --> 00:54:27
			talk about
		
00:54:29 --> 00:54:34
			Oh, after any more questions about independent dependent, dependent are these similar.
		
00:54:37 --> 00:54:39
			Okay, the third category
		
00:54:42 --> 00:54:43
			is definitive.
		
00:54:49 --> 00:54:53
			visibly look over there for growth and for the minus sign. Now, I'm putting plus
		
00:55:05 --> 00:55:06
			Okay,
		
00:55:07 --> 00:55:09
			buddy love No, what's the word spec of the Sydney?
		
00:55:13 --> 00:55:16
			Hey, this is Eric, this has been me.
		
00:55:20 --> 00:55:23
			Okay means it can only have one. Basically,
		
00:55:24 --> 00:55:25
			there's no question about what it means.
		
00:55:27 --> 00:55:30
			speculative mean, it's an open to interpretation.
		
00:55:32 --> 00:55:36
			Okay, it could have more than one. So some posts are definitive
		
00:55:37 --> 00:55:39
			and their scope. For example,
		
00:55:41 --> 00:55:43
			what's the punishment for in an
		
00:55:50 --> 00:55:50
			English?
		
00:55:52 --> 00:55:56
			Okay, the word 100 slides to strive for and exploiting?
		
00:55:57 --> 00:55:59
			Would you say that speculative?
		
00:56:00 --> 00:56:05
			And assuming you're not from some branches? Would you say that speculative or dependable?
		
00:56:07 --> 00:56:09
			Okay, there's 100 means 100. There's not much you can do it.
		
00:56:10 --> 00:56:13
			Okay. But there's other verses that
		
00:56:14 --> 00:56:18
			any there's a word and the word has more than one.
		
00:56:19 --> 00:56:24
			So this is called thicknesses. Okay? Now, there's some more points that we should
		
00:56:25 --> 00:56:29
			consider here, spec definitive is not open to questions.
		
00:56:30 --> 00:56:32
			not open to interpretation, not open to
		
00:56:34 --> 00:56:34
			interpretation.
		
00:56:40 --> 00:56:42
			So obviously, if she had
		
00:56:43 --> 00:56:46
			it, she had only occurred with respect to the second
		
00:56:48 --> 00:56:48
			one.
		
00:56:54 --> 00:56:56
			There's no such thing as this guy when it comes
		
00:57:07 --> 00:57:07
			to guns.
		
00:57:20 --> 00:57:21
			We're talking about
		
00:57:22 --> 00:57:28
			a verse in the Quran. The words of the Quran have one minute or two, they're more than one. They
have one more than one meaning
		
00:57:30 --> 00:57:30
			that they don't.
		
00:58:05 --> 00:58:06
			Okay. Okay.
		
00:58:12 --> 00:58:14
			Okay, I'm not sure how to handle that question. Was that?
		
00:58:16 --> 00:58:18
			So speculative, holy take place.
		
00:58:22 --> 00:58:23
			That only take place?
		
00:58:30 --> 00:58:34
			Yeah, but that doesn't, that doesn't affect the fact that the deal is still definitive.
		
00:58:41 --> 00:58:43
			Okay, I see what you're saying.
		
00:58:46 --> 00:58:47
			Okay, I see what you're saying.
		
00:58:49 --> 00:58:49
			Okay.
		
00:58:51 --> 00:58:53
			I know how fast you but I see what you're saying.
		
00:58:55 --> 00:58:56
			evidence.
		
00:58:57 --> 00:59:02
			Okay. Now, another point to remember that some people and especially nowadays, unfortunately,
		
00:59:03 --> 00:59:11
			when we say that something is speculative, it doesn't mean anything when we say that something has
been mean, that it's open to many opinions and all those opinions are acceptable.
		
00:59:13 --> 00:59:18
			That doesn't, that's not what I mean. Number one, for example, a verse in the Quran may be
speculative by itself.
		
00:59:20 --> 00:59:21
			If you just take it by itself, it's a second.
		
00:59:23 --> 00:59:28
			But if you look at it in the light of other verses in the Quran, or the son of the Prophet says,
		
00:59:30 --> 00:59:33
			it can become perfect or definitive.
		
00:59:35 --> 00:59:46
			Okay, in other words, one verse in the Quran may use a word that has different meanings. What's the
meaning of that word? Well, because why the verses explain or explain and so forth. So just because
something is speculative,
		
00:59:47 --> 00:59:56
			by itself doesn't mean actually that we don't know the meaning of it. Or it's open to
interpretation, not always, because it might be explained. If it is explained then it becomes
		
00:59:58 --> 00:59:59
			if it is explained, it becomes
		
01:00:00 --> 01:00:00
			sent
		
01:00:03 --> 01:00:05
			by another person, by heavy provide man.
		
01:00:06 --> 01:00:18
			Okay. Now, also, just because the evidence is speculative, it doesn't mean that our conclusion
regarding that evidence is not definitive.
		
01:00:21 --> 01:00:21
			This is important point.
		
01:00:23 --> 01:00:27
			Just because the evidence is speculative, it doesn't mean that our conclusions
		
01:00:29 --> 01:00:32
			are the rules that we get from the evidence are not definitive.
		
01:00:38 --> 01:00:42
			What I mean by definitive here is that what the puppy does,
		
01:00:43 --> 01:00:45
			this is the job of something
		
01:00:46 --> 01:00:56
			is that he looks at the different evidences and he can show that one of them is stronger than the
other. Even though the evidence is might be speculative, the conclusion is different.
		
01:01:00 --> 01:01:04
			cannot show which one is definitely stronger of the different opinions and what
		
01:01:08 --> 01:01:15
			are the three possible things or meanings for something? If the puppy cannot show, which one is
definitively stronger than what does he do?
		
01:01:20 --> 01:01:22
			Know, he must not say anything.
		
01:01:24 --> 01:01:28
			He must not say anything, and in his conclusion has to be has to be different.
		
01:01:29 --> 01:01:32
			If you cannot wait between the two, you should not be in?
		
01:01:37 --> 01:01:44
			No, no, that's, that's what I'm saying. And if he cannot, the three things that he cannot say which
is stronger, that he should not say?
		
01:01:47 --> 01:01:50
			No, that's my point. That if you can make
		
01:01:51 --> 01:01:55
			using the principles of the ruling is no longer dependent. It becomes
		
01:01:59 --> 01:02:01
			dependent. Let's take an example.
		
01:02:06 --> 01:02:07
			In the Quran
		
01:02:09 --> 01:02:10
			is talking about
		
01:02:17 --> 01:02:18
			talking about for example, if you don't have
		
01:02:22 --> 01:02:23
			to remember
		
01:02:31 --> 01:02:34
			reverse which area the beginning of the process
		
01:02:40 --> 01:02:42
			is talking about the cases in which you may make
		
01:02:43 --> 01:02:44
			a case for
		
01:02:46 --> 01:02:47
			Yeah, before that.
		
01:02:48 --> 01:02:50
			mentioned, for example, when you
		
01:02:53 --> 01:02:55
			Okay, when you say one or
		
01:02:57 --> 01:02:57
			two minutes.
		
01:03:13 --> 01:03:18
			Okay, what do you think? This is okay, this, you know, the first thing we're talking about talks
about this.
		
01:03:19 --> 01:03:24
			If you if you, for example came from the bathroom, or if you're sick,
		
01:03:25 --> 01:03:28
			or if you did this thing will translate for the time being.
		
01:03:31 --> 01:03:31
			Now,
		
01:03:32 --> 01:03:33
			this is not the right thing.
		
01:03:35 --> 01:03:36
			If you test women,
		
01:03:38 --> 01:03:44
			these are the things that means you have to make. In other words, if the heart is broken, and since
you don't have water in this case,
		
01:03:46 --> 01:03:47
			okay.
		
01:03:49 --> 01:03:57
			So what about this evidence? Is this obviously from everyone's reaction? Is this the definitive
evidence or the second?
		
01:03:58 --> 01:03:58
			One?
		
01:04:06 --> 01:04:06
			Okay.
		
01:04:09 --> 01:04:10
			Okay, okay.
		
01:04:11 --> 01:04:12
			Just a second. Now,
		
01:04:13 --> 01:04:16
			the problem here is that this works, it's open to more than one.
		
01:04:17 --> 01:04:20
			So if it's open to more than one meaning it becomes
		
01:04:22 --> 01:04:29
			But does that mean necessarily that the conclusion we're going to make from this is going to be
speaking to them or not? Yes, that we can if we can show
		
01:04:31 --> 01:04:38
			you this one opinion is stronger than the other. Okay. Now, most most of the most of the things and
		
01:04:39 --> 01:04:40
			most of the conclusions and
		
01:04:42 --> 01:04:42
			conclusions
		
01:04:43 --> 01:04:45
			are mostly speculative or definitive,
		
01:04:47 --> 01:04:47
			definitive.
		
01:04:51 --> 01:04:55
			Some people nowadays, like absurd, they're claiming that they are mostly speculative.
		
01:04:57 --> 01:04:58
			But in fact, that is not the case.
		
01:05:01 --> 01:05:04
			Well, just a living thing in his introduction to consider to be
		
01:05:05 --> 01:05:12
			heroes, the vast majority of the points that people are in need of and asked about are confirmed
either through textual evidence
		
01:05:14 --> 01:05:15
			or is not.
		
01:05:16 --> 01:05:22
			There's only speculation in dispute in a very in, in very few things that people are needed.
		
01:05:23 --> 01:05:32
			Many of the disputed opinions on matters that rarely occur, what the people need them knowledge
concerning what is obligatory upon them, or forbidden or permissible is definitely known.
		
01:05:33 --> 01:05:36
			What is known as the dean by Aurora also sparked,
		
01:05:37 --> 01:05:38
			everyone knows that.
		
01:05:42 --> 01:06:01
			And he goes on to say that there's something of the gene of the religion being known by Aurora or
necessity, or something, and that you have to know this is a relative term for someone who's noticed
them or better than living in visit. Now, you will not know many of these things. But for the Allah,
		
01:06:02 --> 01:06:04
			for Allah, almost everything is perfect.
		
01:06:05 --> 01:06:07
			You will not find any Allah Who doesn't know for example, the promises
		
01:06:10 --> 01:06:16
			or the deposits of the sound to the bed or the product.
		
01:06:20 --> 01:06:21
			This is something they call
		
01:06:30 --> 01:06:31
			me.
		
01:06:36 --> 01:06:36
			Okay?
		
01:06:42 --> 01:06:45
			Which one weighs more? Okay, showing or finding which one weighs more,
		
01:06:47 --> 01:06:49
			weighs more? Which one is stronger? Okay.
		
01:06:54 --> 01:06:55
			Yes, I know.
		
01:06:58 --> 01:07:01
			And what does this mean? What does this really mean?
		
01:07:04 --> 01:07:05
			Doesn't mean believe.
		
01:07:07 --> 01:07:07
			It
		
01:07:10 --> 01:07:15
			means something confirmed in the person's mind says no religion.
		
01:07:17 --> 01:07:20
			And this is what the what the okay.
		
01:07:21 --> 01:07:26
			And with most of that, you come to this conclusion that the property is able to show
		
01:07:27 --> 01:07:34
			which is stronger without increasing. So although many of the evidences are speculative, as in this
example, we'll go through
		
01:07:36 --> 01:07:37
			kind of the conclusions are
		
01:07:46 --> 01:07:46
			thing.
		
01:07:48 --> 01:07:48
			In general, there will be
		
01:07:50 --> 01:08:08
			there'll be there'll be different, yes, one of the scores, Mr. points or something like that. But
when you see that you missed the point, it's clear that she missed the point. Okay, one of the best
books by the way, for this kind of discussion of this book by the death of Mr. Head, and in which he
discusses the the reasoning behind
		
01:08:10 --> 01:08:12
			the conclusions of the essay.
		
01:08:19 --> 01:08:27
			This is definitive in using the principles of a solid step one of the arguments control can be shown
to be clearly or without questions.
		
01:08:38 --> 01:08:38
			But
		
01:08:43 --> 01:08:43
			now,
		
01:08:46 --> 01:08:58
			now, using this principle, and he states that there is clarity that this is the correct point. Now,
if you miss as I said, If you missed the point, you missed the heavy for some layer, which is
coming. That's something else,
		
01:09:00 --> 01:09:02
			then it's easy to go through documents show that was
		
01:09:04 --> 01:09:09
			the point is the conclusions in general, especially among the AMA, and most of them are not
something yet.
		
01:09:14 --> 01:09:14
			Because
		
01:09:22 --> 01:09:23
			no, I didn't say that.
		
01:09:25 --> 01:09:28
			at all, what they said is something different because they said any reverse.
		
01:09:29 --> 01:09:31
			Okay, this is a problem and methodology.
		
01:09:33 --> 01:09:35
			And it because you have to start with the headings and reversals first.
		
01:09:38 --> 01:09:38
			No.
		
01:09:49 --> 01:09:52
			their way of thinking is first, you have to assume that
		
01:09:54 --> 01:09:56
			they're not going to follow any rules they believe is wrong.
		
01:10:01 --> 01:10:03
			But we're talking about the scholars who wrote these books.
		
01:10:04 --> 01:10:05
			Who wrote his books on the
		
01:10:10 --> 01:10:10
			difference between
		
01:10:13 --> 01:10:16
			shibani statements abusive statements? These are all part of the
		
01:10:18 --> 01:10:19
			Yeah, but he's a little bit
		
01:10:26 --> 01:10:28
			much that he did not write a book like this.
		
01:10:33 --> 01:10:35
			Small but not like the ones I was playing
		
01:10:39 --> 01:10:40
			came up with
		
01:10:59 --> 01:11:03
			based on their food, and therefore you can say they're opposed to so which one is wrong?
		
01:11:07 --> 01:11:11
			issue themselves their book, you have to follow them
		
01:11:14 --> 01:11:20
			is really a mystery. There's another question. So let's go through this example to see how we can
get from this
		
01:11:22 --> 01:11:24
			statement in the Quran, which is obviously
		
01:11:25 --> 01:11:28
			to an opinion, which is the number of shows
		
01:11:30 --> 01:11:31
			the thing
		
01:11:33 --> 01:11:33
			that's nice
		
01:11:35 --> 01:11:35
			about
		
01:11:38 --> 01:11:40
			what I was, oh, by
		
01:11:44 --> 01:11:47
			the way, you're the only representative of the 70 minutes
		
01:11:48 --> 01:11:50
			Oh, I'm sorry, I feel represented.
		
01:11:58 --> 01:11:58
			How do
		
01:12:03 --> 01:12:04
			you say
		
01:12:06 --> 01:12:06
			okay,
		
01:12:07 --> 01:12:10
			this means that you want a new sexual
		
01:12:15 --> 01:12:18
			because in the language it could either be in touch
		
01:12:20 --> 01:12:21
			or it could mean sexual *.
		
01:12:34 --> 01:12:37
			The intensive form which implies in this case,
		
01:12:39 --> 01:12:39
			what
		
01:12:43 --> 01:12:46
			intensive, less common sizes what's going to
		
01:12:49 --> 01:12:50
			happen from both sides?
		
01:13:01 --> 01:13:01
			from both sides?
		
01:13:10 --> 01:13:11
			Yeah.
		
01:13:18 --> 01:13:19
			Sorry about that.
		
01:13:25 --> 01:13:27
			Okay, what's it America
		
01:13:42 --> 01:13:44
			the strongest opinion in the medical field has
		
01:13:45 --> 01:13:46
			been me North African.
		
01:13:48 --> 01:13:48
			Touching
		
01:13:50 --> 01:13:53
			not just with the infection, but with pleasure.
		
01:14:05 --> 01:14:07
			This is the strongest.
		
01:14:08 --> 01:14:09
			This comes from direct
		
01:14:13 --> 01:14:14
			Okay, this
		
01:14:24 --> 01:14:25
			one is this one.
		
01:14:26 --> 01:14:28
			One is this one. That's one of
		
01:14:31 --> 01:14:31
			the three nurses.
		
01:14:33 --> 01:14:34
			So what can we pretend to do?
		
01:14:38 --> 01:14:39
			Rather than capital
		
01:14:41 --> 01:14:42
			intensive
		
01:14:43 --> 01:14:43
			right.
		
01:14:47 --> 01:14:48
			Okay.
		
01:14:49 --> 01:14:51
			That was there taking v literal
		
01:14:53 --> 01:14:53
			Okay.
		
01:14:55 --> 01:14:56
			Now as I
		
01:14:59 --> 01:14:59
			was talking about
		
01:15:00 --> 01:15:00
			But
		
01:15:01 --> 01:15:06
			now as I said the verses that are supposed to be taking this by themselves and say this is tricky
		
01:15:08 --> 01:15:13
			so we have to go now from here to go through the heaviest of the bozos that have been explained
		
01:15:14 --> 01:15:15
			there's one heavy
		
01:15:19 --> 01:15:19
			heavy use of eyes
		
01:15:26 --> 01:15:27
			there when the public
		
01:15:28 --> 01:15:29
			used to pay
		
01:15:32 --> 01:15:34
			sometimes when he makes a bet he would
		
01:15:35 --> 01:15:36
			he would have he would have to move
		
01:15:43 --> 01:15:44
			so what does this mean?
		
01:15:47 --> 01:15:47
			Just a minute
		
01:15:48 --> 01:15:51
			what you really see why the
		
01:15:52 --> 01:15:52
			class is
		
01:15:54 --> 01:15:55
			so what about
		
01:15:56 --> 01:15:57
			your movies?
		
01:15:58 --> 01:16:00
			What does that mean for the three things that we have you
		
01:16:03 --> 01:16:07
			know anything about these two that he touched? I said he didn't make
		
01:16:09 --> 01:16:25
			okay know what it is to say that not at any time but totally defect which is going against him Okay.
There are things that that had something covering herself so therefore
		
01:16:26 --> 01:16:27
			this is what they are
		
01:16:32 --> 01:16:33
			the offer no deliver that.
		
01:16:35 --> 01:16:35
			Okay.
		
01:16:37 --> 01:16:39
			Okay, third,
		
01:16:41 --> 01:16:46
			third, third. Or another thing to look at is how do you provide
		
01:16:48 --> 01:16:48
			another
		
01:16:52 --> 01:16:56
			that's a good point by the way, they have no evidence for this condition.
		
01:17:01 --> 01:17:04
			The second Have you ever like said
		
01:17:05 --> 01:17:08
			that suppose I sent him some of his wife
		
01:17:13 --> 01:17:16
			kids some of his wives and wants to pray without making Moodle?
		
01:17:20 --> 01:17:22
			Okay, what does this mean now?
		
01:17:27 --> 01:17:29
			According to the date, you read the books, have
		
01:17:32 --> 01:17:36
			you read the book, the clipping, any kind of pitching? implies?
		
01:17:38 --> 01:17:39
			What do we do with this every month?
		
01:17:43 --> 01:17:45
			We have no problem with this. Because
		
01:17:46 --> 01:17:53
			because we just make a new that's the way we do it every time because remember, we talking about the
second half
		
01:17:54 --> 01:17:58
			of that. And that might not have been you don't have to make Moodle from
		
01:18:00 --> 01:18:05
			the Netherlands. You mentioned that he said if that is correct. And that is my mother You don't have
to make
		
01:18:09 --> 01:18:09
			okay.
		
01:18:11 --> 01:18:13
			And he did not have enough information about
		
01:18:15 --> 01:18:17
			the scores of how do you say that this is authentic?
		
01:18:19 --> 01:18:21
			And there's very little there's no
		
01:18:24 --> 01:18:25
			question about
		
01:18:29 --> 01:18:30
			this
		
01:18:31 --> 01:18:32
			never existed
		
01:18:34 --> 01:18:37
			before and that's insane to force it upon us.
		
01:18:46 --> 01:18:50
			Another another question. That's another question. We're just talking about picking one.
		
01:18:55 --> 01:18:56
			Okay, let's get to it.
		
01:19:02 --> 01:19:08
			Yeah, if you if you if you do anything and you cause Maddie to come and you have to make
		
01:19:12 --> 01:19:13
			Okay.
		
01:19:14 --> 01:19:16
			Now what does that do for this
		
01:19:18 --> 01:19:18
			might have
		
01:19:21 --> 01:19:22
			questionable
		
01:19:25 --> 01:19:27
			according to the data themselves.
		
01:19:28 --> 01:19:31
			So this might have clearly against this heaviest of the bonuses and them?
		
01:19:37 --> 01:19:42
			No, no, the medical the medical thing that gives
		
01:19:43 --> 01:19:46
			me the pleasure, not extreme.
		
01:19:48 --> 01:19:48
			Okay.
		
01:19:49 --> 01:19:53
			So even the most dramatic and when it comes to this point, you just
		
01:19:54 --> 01:19:59
			wipe this off. He doesn't even bother to descend or possibly try to defend the
		
01:20:00 --> 01:20:05
			Have a two arguments as similar to it's a it's a double skinned argument, there's no evidence for
it.
		
01:20:06 --> 01:20:18
			So now if we interpret this verse in the light of these two headings, which is how any the study is
supposed to be done, and there's not a verse by itself coming from nowhere, but it's related to the
life of the prophet in
		
01:20:19 --> 01:20:21
			the statements as Iseman, the other versus
		
01:20:22 --> 01:20:24
			what is the irrefutable conclusion about
		
01:20:26 --> 01:20:27
			what we're left with only one.
		
01:20:29 --> 01:20:32
			And I picked this example to show the Hanafi brothers the band that always against
		
01:20:34 --> 01:20:36
			the position of Abu hanifa.
		
01:20:38 --> 01:20:42
			Also, if you add this back to it, it just stinks from the head of
		
01:20:45 --> 01:20:46
			the
		
01:20:47 --> 01:20:53
			the verse itself is open to many different interpretations, like there's even more than these three.
		
01:20:54 --> 01:21:00
			And when you pick the verse as a whole with the rest of the city as the ruling or the verse becomes
perfect.
		
01:21:01 --> 01:21:02
			There's no reason for any
		
01:21:04 --> 01:21:04
			differences.
		
01:21:06 --> 01:21:07
			Now,
		
01:21:16 --> 01:21:28
			this is a better example, because she's talking about something which is general, that has been very
clearly specified by Heidi. But he talks about a situation where the public says him in his words.
		
01:21:30 --> 01:21:30
			But
		
01:21:35 --> 01:21:36
			the questions about this
		
01:21:40 --> 01:21:41
			class was so fast.
		
01:21:47 --> 01:21:48
			Yeah, because
		
01:21:50 --> 01:21:51
			his wife, actually,
		
01:21:56 --> 01:21:57
			without
		
01:22:04 --> 01:22:06
			the first can be the first
		
01:22:11 --> 01:22:13
			someone was coming in reverse could have one of
		
01:22:14 --> 01:22:20
			these traditions that Americans put on it. There's no actually evidence for either this one or this
one, actually.
		
01:22:32 --> 01:22:33
			We're just talking about a touching woman.
		
01:22:35 --> 01:22:36
			a different point that he wanted me to make.
		
01:22:39 --> 01:22:39
			What's the minimum