Principles Of Fiqh Part 5

share this pageShare Page
Jamal Zarabozo

Channel: Jamal Zarabozo

Series:

Topics: Fiqh

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

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


00:00:02--> 00:00:06

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 intercourse.

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