Maxims of Fiqh #05 – All Evil and Harm are to be Removed
Date:
Channel: Navaid Aziz
File Size: 48.08MB
Related
- Mirza Yawar Baig – Rights of Rasoolullah #05
- Karim Abuzaid – The Right Belief #6
- Irshaad Sedick – Guiding Students to Discerning Between the Ten Recitations – Info Session
- Muhammad Salah – Gardens Of The Pious #754 Bounties Allah Prepared For Believers
- Farhan Abdul Azeez – Sweetness of Salah – 14 – Tashahud
- Mohamad Baajour – A Moment to Wonder & Ponder #07 Just Put your trust in Him
- Karim Abuzaid – Marriage 07 Men Are The Protectors Of Women
AI Generated Summary ©
The Hadith statement is true, but it is not true. It is not a single thing that is harmful and is not a single thing that is harmful. regulations prevent harm from pursued, such as limiting access to businesses and criminal punishment. Priers and regulations are essential for avoiding harm, and individuals are harmed by marriage and drinking alcohol.AI Generated Transcript ©
What is the cornerstone of when albula haematuria unforeseen Omen sejati Imani pneumonia de la hora de modelo de humo de la or Sedona either Hello la hola silica whoa shadow Ana Mohammed Abu Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sahbihi wa seldom at the Sleeman kathira. I'm about my dear brothers and sisters so that modicon rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
So tonight's halaqa is going to be on principle number four, and that is the principle adopted result that all evil and all harm is to be removed. And this statement is actually based upon the Hadith of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, where he said La da da da whether there are Mandara dora dora hula woman Shaka Shaka, Allah Who were the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that no harm is to be done, nor is harm allowed to be reciprocated. And whoever harms another individual, Allah subhanho wa Taala will harm that individual. And it's implied on the Day of Judgment, and whoever makes things difficult for another person, Allah subhanho wa Taala will make
things difficult for that person, likewise, on the day of judgment, as well. Now this hadith has been collected in many sources in a widowed part of Israel Bukhari part of it in the other Sinan as well. And you know, we studied it in the Imam and now is 40 Hadith when we talked about the authenticity of it. So there is a slight weakness in the Hadith, but overall, the meaning is correct. Now, the relevance of this hadith and the relevance of the concept of harm is that everything has a pro and a con to it. Right? There's not a single thing that exists that we know of, besides obedience to Allah subhanho wa Taala that doesn't have pros and cons to it. And this is what
this section is here to discuss that how do we understand what is considered a con what is considered harmful? And how to understand what is considered a benefit? And how are we meant to interact with a towel Remember to interact with it? Now just to show you the significance of this one Hadith, one of the great scholars of Islam abodo, the Ramallah the one that no collected the sunon he said that this hadith encompasses 1/5 of Islam, that 1/5 of Islam is encompassed in this hadith. And in fact, he's talked about, you know, if you were to, if you wanted to study all of Islam, you could find it in five Hadith. And those the Hadith that we mentioned in a moment now is
40, Hadith, all of them, in fact, are found. Nima now is 40, the hedis. So now from an Islamic perspective, when Allah subhanho wa Taala talks about harm in the Koran, do you know in which context Allah subhanaw taala talks about the greatest amount of harm?
in Jannah? No, that's more of a punishment, we're talking about the word Dada or Dada, or Dada, you know, when is it used the most in the Koran? Anyone know?
When you want to look it up, inshallah you do that.
It's used in the context of a husband and wife relationship, right? In South Dakota, Allah subhanaw. taala, uses it several times, where he talks about where the man has the authority, and he has power, and he abuses this authority and power against his wife. So he dislikes his wife, but at the same time, he doesn't divorce her. And this is considered a harmful relationship, this is considered a harmful relationship. And this is the context that Allah subhanaw taala uses it in. So to understand harm over here, you have to understand that harm can be done, you know, predominantly by those people that have power and authority. harm is not usually done by that someone that doesn't
have power and authority. So abuse of that power and authority is considered one of the greatest forms of harm, abuse of that authority is considered one of the greatest forms of harm. Likewise, in another context, in the Quran, Allah subhanaw taala talks about the harming of the spouse through the child. So basically, emotionally blackmailing the spouse through the child. So turning the child against the spouse, this is another form of authority, that, you know, the that Allah subhanho wa Taala didn't allow. Now, when we talk about harm over here, I want you to think of regulations in Islam that are there to prevent harm. And this I want to do this as an exercise. What rules do we
know that are there in Islam that prevent harm? So what's the rule that you can think of that's there to prevent harm?
to divorce? Sorry.
How so?
there are procedures to protect both husband, ex husband and ex wife.
Such as,
am I right? I'm waiting to hear. You can just throw out random answers and expect me to accept them. Like I need to know what you're talking about.
conditions that
determine like,
what I'm trying to say is a result of divorce. There's nothing like that.
Legal divorce. Okay, which the term financial harm may come to the husband after the wife?
Okay.
How do Okay, so let's just take that fine, fantastic, I will accept that. So in terms of the divorce, there's limits as to how much access the woman has access to after the divorce. But I would say even before we get to that step, if you look at the regulations of the doors, that a man should not divorce a woman when she's on her menstrual cycle, because she may be a temperamental at that time. A man should not divorce a woman during a time when he's had marital intercourse with her, that prolonged period of time should be there, where they should be separated in the beds before that. So these are some of the regulations that are in play to prevent that. What are the
regulations? Can we think of
actions that bring about their harm, others harm are classified in a simple way, like murdering people or stealing.
Fantastic. So all of those things that are harmful to people, those are haram as well. Now want to look at specific things. Let's give it like the divorce one was a good case. Think of other specific things, that the regulations in place to prevent people from being harmed? So thinking about business transactions, can we think about any regulations in business transactions?
Yep. Some criticism of the term, you know, mistakes, you know, and ethical investing with ethical businesses, in this moment does not distinguish between that and the dean. So if you're not ethical in business,
to General, give me a specific?
Sorry, I think what about it, that you have to write it, so that's
fantastic. So if you lend money to someone, you should have it written down and have witnesses for it as well. So that person can't claim that I never received the money, or you can't claim that I forgot after very good, but I want to give you a chance to finish.
We'll pass on that. So in business transactions, if there's this two components that the buyer and the seller, both of them have a responsibility, the buyer has the responsibility to find any defects in the product before he buys it. And the seller has the responsibility to inform the buyer that, hey, this product has this deficiency or it's broken, or there's something wrong with it. And I want you to know about that before I sell it to you. So those are some of the things now I want to share some of the things that are in play some of the rules that are in play. So for example, you mentioned the buying and selling already, likewise, in situations where you're allowed to abandon a
person to teach them a lesson, right? So the general rule is that if you find someone's behavior harmful to you, then you are allowed, you know, boycotting them for a temporary amount of temporary amount of time, the concept of a sauce that someone kills someone else, then the judge, or the court system will, you know, decide at that time, what is the ruling, it can either be blood money at that time, or based upon the situation, it may even be a life for a life, depending on the situation. Likewise, the adult punishment, and this is something that's very important to understand, because that's something that, you know, gets attacked a lot in this day and age. Is the punishment there to
punish people. No, it's not, it's there to prevent crime, right. So when the punishment takes place, it has such strict laws, or still such strict, strict prerequisites that need to be met. That's difficult to meet those but if they are met, then the punishment is severe, but it is there to prevent crime from taking place. So if you see someone with their hand cut off, it is to remind them, Hey, this is what happens if you end up stealing. Likewise, in terms of the cafe rot, that Kufa is very, very severe. So in the month of Ramadan, if a man has intercourse with his wife, while he is fasting, a very extreme kafala, you know, fasting for two consecutive months, with no breaks
whatsoever. It's there, too, as a deterrent from doing so deterred from doing so. So those are all examples of rulings that are are present in Islam, to eliminate harm and to prevent harm from taking place. Now, I want to give you an example. And I want to see how you guys would judge this situation. So we have Dinesh and in the jeep, Dinesh owns a piece of land and he's renting it out to in the jeep, who is using it for farming purposes. The contract period is for five years, five years comes to an end. And Najib is in the middle of a harvest. Okay, so you haven't completely harvested all of your crops. And then he says, Hey, I want my land back. Now, since he's in the middle of the
harvest, and Dinesh could potentially benefit from that harvest as soon as it's done, and this case is now brought to you what are you going to do?
Yeah, can you not request the Jeep pay him for that extended period,
you can request him to do so.
Dinesh is not obliged to listen.
Go ahead the job. What do you do? What did the product be owned by me? What were the land is owned by him? Okay, so what else wants to take the crops that I had harvested? He would have to purchase? Because it is my right. So I as a judge, what would you do in this situation? Like how? How do you force the parties now? What would be a fair judgments to make that you're spot on and what times what you said the land belongs to him, the crops belongs to you. But you can't get access to those crops because your contract is over now.
either an extension or guys would have to purchase the crops off. Okay. And in the presumption that Dinesh doesn't want to rent the land, you can't really force him to rent the land in that situation. So you, let's just say in the second kitchen, or you forced him to buy the crops, okay. Dinesh, what would you do?
I'll be the same. There's no other scenario, there's a value that can be put on that on that product, of course.
So I guess
you wouldn't be liable for that. Anyone have any other solutions? Yep.
Can you force cash to buy your crops as well as pay him for the profits? loss?
So you want him to pay for the crops as well as for the loss? But the loss is not actualized? There's no, like, we don't know for sure if the GE would actually be able to sell those or not.
So why would you force the dynasty to do that? Well, I mean, it's, it's, it's harvest crops, you have to sell, you know, 1/3 of Canada's weed gets thrown in the ocean every year. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay, in this situation, then the decision to force Dinesh to buy the crops would be the correct one, that the buyer and the seller both need to be protected, right. And just because Najib is in the vulnerable position, it doesn't mean that we give all that right to Dinesh. So therefore, in this situation,
Dinesh will be responsible for buying the crops that have been harvested, Dennis will be responsible for buying the crops that will be harvested and the judge has the right to force him to do that the judge has the right to force him to do that.
Now, what else do they want to tell you?
So now, when we look at the concept of harm, how is harm defined in the *tier.
Understanding harm in the *tier comes in one of two ways, either the harm is clearly present. So for example, you know, when someone is being hurt by the sound that they make, you punch them, they will go out, you pinch them, they will go out, the harm is present, because it is visible. Now, is that harm always going to be in the form of something physical? No, it can be something emotional, it can be something psychological. So how will you recognize that harm? So the way the Sharia recognizes harm is by way of prohibition. So anything that has been prohibited in the Koran is automatically going to be considered something harmful, and that is the default understanding that
Allah subhanho wa Taala only makes things haraam because they are harmful to people. And Allah subhanho wa Taala only makes things halal, because they're beneficial and good for people. So those are the default rulings that you need to understand that in the Sharia, when we talk about harm, either it has to be known and recognized, or it comes to the way of text where anything that is prohibited is considered a harm within of itself. Anything that is considered that is prohibited, is considered a harm within of its self. Now, let's talk about some of the sub principles that come under this principle. The first principle that we want to talk about is that a harm is not about are
allowed to be removed by similar harm, a harm is not allowed to be removed by a similar harm. So several examples for this, the first example I mentioned after the salon, you have one poor person that has absolutely nothing, another poor person, and he has something but it's only sufficient for himself. So can the first poor person rob the second poor person in order to save himself in order to save himself? Another example of this even more severe, where a person says, I will kill you if you do not kill the other person? So in order to save your own life, are you allowed to kill that other person? Right? So those are the scenarios that we're looking at. Those are the scenarios that
we're looking at. Look at the first one in terms of stealing from that other poor person. What we do in that situation?
Yep.
Vocal Viola on the
there was a drought. People were starving and noodles
He did not
allow stealing, but yet he did not apply the had the temporary suspensions. So it shows that from his
mother's understanding that he doesn't understand where this is going. But
he is not exactly in
the hands of the thieves. So, I'd say it might be a lot of question is the poor person what does he do? Which brokers like the one that's stealing? And yet either or either or?
Just the first one that has absolutely nothing? Is he allowed to steal? Is his stealing justified, it is justified by me like it is justified. It is understandable. But it's how is it understandable?
he's bored, they're both. They're both hungry, and they're both poor.
Whoever exactly whatever doesn't eat dies. So how.
So we justify the killing of another person due to our own hunger, we can shoot, they can share it, and then they both end up dying.
Now be fair, they both
said,
How can I be removed by similar stood in this scenario, it would not be permissible for him to still preserve his life. And he would actually die a noble death because he had the opportunity to do something wrong. And he didn't do it, that's considered something very noble to do. Now, in the second scenario, this is going to become a lot more practical. So in a situation where someone gives you a gun, and they tell you look, either you kill so and so or I will kill you, now it becomes a bit more, there's a bit more dynamic to it, I want you to understand why it's not permissible to kill the other person. The reason why it's not permissible beside killing being held on because if
you were to kill someone, that's something that's certainly going to happen, right, you take a gun, you pointed out their head, you pull the trigger, they're going to die at that time, that's not necessarily going to happen. However, that person actually killing us threatening you, there's a chance it may happen, there's a chance it may not happen. So that which is certain will take precedence over that which is not certain. So therefore, you killing someone is completely out of the picture, because one it is haram. And two, you cannot remove one harm with the harm that is equivalent. And three, because of this principle over here, that that which is certain will take
precedence over that which is not certain. So now when we talk about a harm being removed by other harm, how does the Shetty recognize the different levels of harm? How do you guys understand this? How do you understand what the levels of harm are in the *tier?
Are all harms the same?
There's obviously some words that are more private than you commit against yourself. And there's harm that infringes on the rights of others. Fantastic. So a public harm is considered a greater harm than that, which is a private term. What's another way of looking at it, major minor?
explained, there's the harm that's
very minor, to yourself, or to a smaller community, as opposed to the larger. That's exactly what he just said. How else do we decide what is greater? So for example, what is the greatest crime in Islam?
To share it with Allah Subhana? Wa Tada. Right? And then how about smoking a cigarette? It's a crime, but it's not that big of a crime. How do we know which is bigger and which is smaller?
Sorry.
So through text, right? So the text came to tell you generally which ones are bigger and which ones are major. So the Hadith that talks about major sins, a server I know because the seven major sins, there's a hadith that talks about it. So those are considered major. So those the harm in those is greater than the harm that are not mentioned in those. Likewise, a third way of understanding it is what are the things that the Shinya came to protect? So the Cydia came to protect life, religion, intellect, wealth and honor. Right? So that's why we're constantly studying those things is to understand, when it comes to understand what is an equal or greater or lesser harm, there has to be
a guideline on how to navigate through it. So either you know, through what the prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam told you, or you know, it in terms of the benefit and harm that you see with your own eyes is only harming one person versus it harming a whole community or you know it through the objectives of Islamic law, or you know, through the objectives of Islamic law. The next principle is a bit more complicated and this is where real filk is, is required. And this is a principle that avoiding harm takes precedence than attaining good avoiding harm takes precedence over attaining the
Good. Now how exactly do we understand this principle? How exactly do we understand this principle? So if you were to look in the verse of alcohol and gambling in Soto bacara Allah subhana wa tada he says, Yes aluna Canyon come they will make your coffee Hema is one Kabir Romana, if you only know what it's about men know him, that they asked you regarding alcohol and gambling, tell them that it is a lot of sin, but also benefit for mankind and their sin is greater than their benefit their sin is greater than their benefit. So, here Allah subhanho wa Taala is saying that both sin and benefit are present in alcohol and in gambling, but the sin in it or the harm in it is greater than the
benefit. So, what is the ruling on it that even though both are present, then the sin is greater, and therefore it must be avoided. So in that situation where sin and were evil and how and benefit are present, then the harm has to be avoided, before the benefit can be recognized, the harm needs to be avoided before the benefit can be recognized. Now let's tie this in into into actual text of the Sharia, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he says that that which I give you, sorry, that which I commend you with, then do as much of it as you can. And that which I prohibit from you stay away from it. So when it came to the prohibition process, um, said, stay away from it altogether.
But when it came to doing the command of the Prophet sallallahu, alayhi wasallam, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, then do as much of it as you can do as much of it as you can. So now a person comes and tells you, Hey, I own a restaurant. And my restaurant doesn't earn as much money as x, y and Zed restaurant, Why doesn't your restaurant earn as much? Because I don't sell alcohol? And you know, doesn't the Sharia say that Muslims should be wealthy and, you know, me, earning money that I can give to the mercy that the Muslim causes is a benefit. So therefore, I should be allowed to sell alcohol in my restaurant.
Friday when you think what you just told us avoiding harm.
Okay.
Bottom line, bottom line, just don't sell alcohol. So now this person says, Yeah, I understand. It's a verse in the Quran. But I want you to help me understand why.
What do you tell us?
Excellent, like your income is? Okay, anything that comes from that will be okay, you're selling around to other people, which in turn, they can do things that are wrong or whatever. That's
no, that's perfect. So the the income that you are going to have is how long are you going to be buying from that income is how long and the fact that you're helping people get intoxicated and disobey Allah subhanaw taala, which potentially will make their bad decisions from which potentially could lead to people dying by drunk driving, which could lead to people getting impregnated, you know, by companies in our being drunk, all these harms come about it. So when you understand the laws of the city, I this is what the city I came to protect. This is what the Cydia came to protect. And that is why no matter what type of argument you try to bring in terms of selling alcohol in your
store, or in your restaurant, it's not going to be permissible, it's not going to be permissible, because it's not something that harms an individual, it suddenly had harms the whole entire society. It's something that harms a whole entire society. Now, let me give you another example. Let's go back, you know, 1400 years, you need to go to the bathroom. Okay, so after you finish going to the bathroom, you need to clean yourself. But when you went to the bathroom, you didn't have anything to clean yourself with. So now you go to the river, and you're about to clean yourself. But there's people that are fishing by the river, and you have nothing to clean, you have nothing to seclude
yourself with, nor do you have a bottle or container to take the water away with you. And this situation, which is the lesser of the two harms is the lesser harm to clean yourself in the nude while in the public. Or are you excused from cleaning yourself because you don't have the ability to seclude yourself? What do you do
which is
you don't pin yourself because Jessa you can go home
as opposed to be naked outside. That's technically it.
It takes away the point of or kills the point of view being in a state of purity. If you're going to be naked in front of people.
I did not understand that. So there's no point in being
Pure if you're going to be naked,
say, let's go on to someone else. What do you do in this situation and unders, try to use some of the principles that you've learned thus far to cover itself as much as possible.
So try to cover himself as much as possible and get and clean himself. Okay? Why though?
Because he has to me as well.
So even in that situation, he should even if he's exposed, Okay, go ahead. Tom is contaminating the larger body of water.
So the larger body of water is something can't be contaminated. When you have flowing water. Unless the color changes or the smell changes or the taste changes, it can become contaminated.
is one purifying yourself and retaining good were keeping yourself covered is avoiding arms avoiding harm takes precedence over good so you don't? You don't beat yourself?
Okay, can you just repeat that one more time? Cleaning yourself is attaining good. Cleaning yourself as attaining good. yourself is avoiding harm. Okay, so and what are you basing that upon? Avoiding harm takes precedence over? The principle is what is correct. But I'm asking where did you get this principle of, you know, cleaning yourself as attaining good? Why is that not abstaining from harm?
is hard because
the heart is already in the gym.
You can't really know everywhere you go, there's fissures there.
Go on Jitney go for a swim. Okay, the point I wanted to get out over here is I wanted you guys to recognize which one is the command? And which one is the prohibition? Okay. So the command is to clean yourself. And the prohibition is not to uncover yourself. So once you understand the command and the prohibition, which one do we give preference to?
To the prohibition you have to stay away from prohibitions at all costs, and the commands you do them to the best of your ability? So over here, if you can fulfill the abstaining from the prohibition, even if you don't fulfill the command, then that is something good. so in this situation, the correct answer is that you are excused from cleaning yourself till a later time, when you would be able to clean yourself till a later time where you are able to clean yourself. So in that situation, even if you had to offer Salah or do anything like that, you would be excused, you would be excused, and it wouldn't be held against you, it wouldn't be held a against you. So now,
let's take another example, we'll go through it quickly. The general ruling on when you're rinsing your mouth and cleaning your nose, and we'll do is that you're meant to exaggerate it right, you don't just regularly rinse your mouth and regularly clean your nose. you're meant to exaggerate the dude, you know, to the best of your ability. But for the fasting person, he's meant to do the exact opposite. He raises his mouth and cleans his nose very gently, what is this based upon? Understanding what is the command and understanding what is the prohibition? So the prohibition is not to break his fast the command is to exaggerate. So not breaking his fast takes precedence over
the exaggeration. Are you guys understanding this? No. So you understand when you look at, you know, harms and benefits, understand which one is the prohibition and understand which one is the command? And when you can differentiate and distinguish that then you have half of your answer right over there you have half of your answer right over there. Now,
because we have to get a guru
who said it sooner
to make Google Video
without the internet
not according to the humble they must have according to the humble manner with wajib to do so, as part of cleaning the face. So, when Allah subhanaw taala says clean depends upon the command how what is the level of because in case of purification is the commodity so high? And you know, we have to see that how much what is the level of Cologne and what is that
all prohibitions are treated the same. So regardless if you want to call it a small prohibition or major of prohibition, you need to stay away from all prohibitions to the best of your ability
to be different than something is something. I mean, it's something that is sooner.
Yeah, but I'm saying something that shouldn't that you won't get a command for it. You get an encouragement to do it. Right. There's a difference.
Command comes with the obligation to do it, unless proven otherwise. So you're only given a command, the default going if it's an obligation upon you. So that's what we're talking about. So now,
we were talking about in which situations are you allowed giving preference to the command over the problem? Okay, so you have a command and a prohibition? When does the command take precedence over the prohibition? What do you guys think?
No.
Mohammed,
the time for sun sunrise is young.
So here,
combined.
Fantastic. So you gave me a specific example, which is very good. I want you to extract a general ruling from this specific example. What is the general rule and you'll extract from it?
Is it an exception? Because you said for efficient takes precedence over the commodity, right? So generally speaking, yes, the prohibition will take precedence over the command. But if we want to come up with a principle, in which situations will we say that the command gives is given precedence over the prohibition? What needs to take place? Go ahead in the back. Like, example, in the legs in a desert area? Yeah. alcohol.
prohibition will take priority because
preventing yourself from time is more priority than like commenting, like don't do it. Right.
Okay, so what is the principle we're coming up with? That's what I'm looking at.
With
in like one sentence or less,
okay.
With the terminal
commands, it's okay to break prohibition
when
they go ahead.
Sorry, go ahead.
So, necessity makes the impermissible permissible, we understand that. But when you have a command and you have a prohibition, the general ruling is the command needs to be avoided at all costs. And the prohibited the sorry, the prohibition needs to be avoided at all cost. And the command you tried to do the best of your ability in a situation in which situations is the command given precedence and preference over the prohibition?
Well, that goes, I didn't understand where you were going. setia
something even more general than that.
Something I don't know what that means. I understand that you by the What does that have to do with what you're talking about? Oh, four Oh, no. something even more general.
Given?
Still going to specifics.
So let me give you an example. So maybe this will help. In the case of amount of new Yassir, what is the ruling on staying on staying staying Cofer on your tank? Is it allowed or is it impermissible? It's held on right. In fact, it's one of the major sins in Islam. He was threatened with his life. And he came to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and told him what had happened. And the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told him that if they threaten you again, repeat that statement. So how on what principle? Did the Prophet sallallahu Sallam say, they that go ahead and commit? Cofer again, if you have to go ahead?
Go ahead.
Preserving life but it's greater than life itself. I'm looking for something. What is the principle like life is too specific? Go ahead.
Just by your intention. So that's part of it that his heart was filled with copper. So the D didn't actually count. But we're looking at a general principle.
That's exactly what he said.
sickness, fasting and sickness. You guys are giving me specific examples. I want to principle and I'm not gonna move till I get that principle. If we have to stay here till a fudger. We're staying here to fudge it.
What is the principle? Why was life given precedence over the dean here?
And this goes back to I think I asked you this question. When we talk about the cost of the *tier. Why does Dean come second over life? Do we have this discussion? Yeah, what was the answer? You don't want to
go ahead. In one sentence, what takes precedent precedent
in terms of
certainty and uncertainty, no
less small
harm takers, our veteran
like small harm, saving your life is more important than just drinking. Alcoholic consider this a dessert or something right? Okay.
I want to give it to you just because I want to move on. So anytime the benefit is greater than the harm, the benefit will take precedence over the harm. Do you guys understand that? So anytime the benefit is greater than the harm, the benefit will be will be given precedence over the harm. So over here when you have to choose between life and Dean, the life was given precedence because without life, there is no Dean. If all of mankind was extinct, there is no Dean to established and that is why even when you talk about mikaze, the *tier, life becomes before Dean, because without life, there is no Dean. So that's what the ruling is that the general overall good, the greater good
will always take precedence over a minimal amount of harm over a minimal amount of harm. Now, let's just draw this down on more specific levels. So for example, you have the case of Salah, and someone that's constantly breaking their window, right, they have an illness in their stomach, they're constantly breaking their will do. Now we'll do a condition for Salah with which Salah is invalid if there is no Voodoo. Now the overall harm and benefit over here is that a person at that time has to choose, hey, do I pray while without having Voodoo theoretically? Or do I just give up the Salah altogether, because they don't fulfill the prerequisites. Right? So over here, making sure that a
person prays, even if he doesn't have Voodoo takes precedence, because the greater benefit in praying is, is much greater than the little bit of harm of not having whoodle of not having will the
same thing with the facing of the Qibla. If a person is unable to figure out which way the Qibla is, he can see at that time, hey, since I don't know where the Qibla is, I don't have to pray, because the benefit of the Salah is much greater than the missing that of the direction of the Qibla.
Now, let me ask you a question over here.
A husband and wife are non Muslim. And they are married according to their tradition and to their religion and accept Islam.
Do they have to redo their marriage contract? Even though Islam does not recognize their previous marriage contract?
Friday, you look deep in thought I want to hear what you're thinking.
Obviously, yes. They have to redo their marriage contract.
No, no, you change your mind. Good. Now tell me why.
Just seems very, I guess it just seems right to each other. I can't give you any. I don't need an IRA had it. I just need understanding why do you understand it like that? Because we've already committed to each other and you've already understood that they're there with each other know each other. Okay. So the objectives of marriage are already met. Even though the niqab may not be their position? Go ahead. I was just going to say because
lots of people were married before they were
converted, when they converted, there's no narrations of everyone having to carry redo their Nika. Now, what is that based upon? though? That's what we want to figure out.
Why would they not required to do we do that in the car? Because islamically their marriage is not recognized in Islam, right? Like the Nika has conditions, those conditions weren't met, therefore, they did not have the nigga had done. Now why is it that once accepted Islam together, they didn't have to get to Nika had done, go ahead. It means we're gonna keep them together. Because if you give them the option now to have to renew everything that might not stay together, and you have lots of people just splitting up. That's one way of looking at it. But that's the main principle over here that the overall good that Islam wants people to be together not to be separated. So they've
committed their whole lives to one another together, and they've recognized their institution, whether in their own religion or in their own tradition, now that they've entered into Islam, there's no need to repeat that because society already recognize them as marriage, and whatever the society recognize them as would be valid as well, as long as it doesn't go against a specific Islamic text. So for example, you know, a man is married to one of his direct relatives in another tradition might be recognized in Islam that wouldn't be recognized in Islam that wouldn't be recognized. You have a question?
The answer is already given.
Let's move on to the last sub principle for the evening and Sharla. The last principle for the evening
is that in the
case of
a greater evil and the lesser evil, the lesser evil must be chosen in the case of a greater evil and the lesser evil, the lesser evil must be chosen.
And
in the same at the same time in the conflict of an evil that affects a few versus an evil affecting the majority, the evil that affects the minority will be disregarded evil that affects the minority will be disregarded. And our case study for this why because of the law is the Treaty of how they via the Treaty of how they be.
When the machine recon, agreed with the processor, they agreed that any one of the Quraysh that comes to Medina has to be turned back. But any of the Muslims that go to Makkah will not be returned. Do you guys remember that? So treated for the BIA. That's what happens. Now why would the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam agree to something like that? Why would he allow this term to take place? Like it's not fair? Clearly, when you look at it, for the letter of the law, it's not fair. What is the process? I'm seeing that most people didn't see going?
It makes peace? Explain.
Good, that's a perfect answer, that this prevented the greater Muslim Omar from being attacked. So these are the conditions that they want, even if it means a few people are being harmed, the Sharia is willing to overlook that because the majority are being protected, because the majority are being protected. So in the case of two evils, when two evils, you know, are present, the lesser of the two evils always has to be chosen. So in the Treaty of Arabia, the lesser of the two evils is that those that wanted to mucker you know, they they've met their fate at that time, as long as the Muslim majority is being protected, as long as the Muslim majority is being protected. Do you guys
understand that?
Fantastic. To have another example for you.
Another example of this is the Bedouin man that came and urinated in the masjid. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told the companions to leave him to let him finish. urinating in the masjid. What are the evils that are present?
Okay, that's one What else?
disrespects?
Okay.
nudity? Yeah. What else? So had the position prevented him halfway while he's urinating? We want to look at why did the possum stop him halfway while he was urinating.
If he had stopped him, you know, myself turned around, might have gotten on some cocoa. So how long it would have spread. Fantastic. So we'll see in the gesture, generally, upon himself upon other people that weren't going to be affected by it. If that wasn't the case, is another harm that the person saw that he didn't stop the man from doing. Which was
in the sense that a key
he was awake, he doesn't want to make a scene as a matter of exploiting the club and more people looking at me and possibly not feel good about himself.
Exactly. So if you cut a man person off from urinating, that's going to be harmful to the individual themselves. So the person didn't want that individual themself to be harmed as well. So now the process of them has to choose between either he lets the machine get desecrated what the man did, or this person is going to be, you know, potentially affecting others by urinating on them and urinating in other parts of the masjid as well as harming himself. So the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam chose the lesser of the two evils to say, let this man finish urinating, we're just going to take a tub of water poured over that place, and it's ended the story. And then you take an
opportunity to teach this segment, and then you take an opportunity to teach this man.
So let me give you an example where I want you guys to give me the answer.
So
a pregnant woman passes away.
And in her stomach is a fetus that is relatively mature. You can say eight, nine months. Now, there is the presumption that the fetus is still alive in the stomach, even though the mother has died. Okay?
There's a prohibition of desecrating a body after the person has passed away. You're not allowed mutilating a body or doing anything with the body after person has passed away with the Sharia would, would it be justified to cut open this woman's body under the presumption that the baby's still alive? Go ahead. It will be allowed. The reason why because you're given
a new lineup, and whatever you grow very good morning, guys. Fantastic. So now, I want you to frame it this way. What are the two evils that are present and what are the lessons
Of the two evils.
evil,
evil, evil you would kill two people. Yes, the minor one is wonderfully designed. Excellent. So the lesser of the two evils always takes precedence, the lesser of the two evils always takes precedence.
So, let's use another example. We'll use Freddie and COVID. Okay, so Freddie is a diamond merchant. Okay. And Habib owns a form that has chickens on it. So Freddie is visiting Habib. And as he's walking, Freddie, you know, his his briefcase, it spills open, and one of the chickens ends up swallowing the one of the diamonds, what do we do over here?
How do we rectify the situation?
So what are they the first recognize what are the two harms? And then what is the lesser of the two harms?
Two harms is a gun is worth much more than chicken. So killing a chicken? No, I'm sorry. That's jumping the gun. Those are not the two harms. That is a conclusion. I want you to tell me why this is harm. Number one, this is harm number two, this is a greater harm. This is a lesser harm. Number one is it affects the likelihood of pregnancy financial loss for fetish. Yes. The other heart is the chicken
swallows the diamond, it might freeze problems. And it's hard to pass. Okay, so it's a loss for me. Okay, so now, how do you rectify the situation? I slaughtered the chicken.
Give him the or, you know, if it passes, it passes, but if it does, it's not going to pass, slaughter the chicken, extract the diamond and he compensates me for the chicken. He compensates you for the chicken. very willingly. If that happens, that's perfect. But in the case that is not willingly how would the judge decide that it will be based upon that, that Freddy is required to compensate for the chicken and he would get to the diamond back. And you are not allowed to keep the diamond in that situation. They've so that is the case of the lesser of the two evils.
We spoke about that already.
And that is it for tonight. That is the highlight for tonight. Just an announcement for next week. Next week's Hanukkah is going to be on Tuesday night and not on Wednesday. And it is going to be the last halaqa particularly for the Google moron class. It is going to be another obligatory Holocaust. So like last week's Holocaust was obligatory. So is next week, because there's a lot of fear that's going to be involved. So that is that and anything else.
Yes, and we have one or more tickets being sold tonight for $25.25. So if you buy your tickets tonight, they're on special for 25. Usually the ticket price is $35. So you're getting a $10 discount on that. Allah huzzah. sallallahu seminal article in the Vienna Muhammad wa ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallam. Subhana Allah home, we'll be having a shadow night. stuff. We'll go to blue lake. anyone has questions? I will take them. Go ahead.
Please talk to me about the mother the children out inside the mother? Yes.
Morgan.
The general ruling is that the donating of organs from a dead person is not permissible. That is the general rule. Like if a person is alive and have an organ that they can donate, for example, person has two kidneys, and they can survive with one kidney, you can donate one of your kidneys. However, after half a person has dead is dead. The majority have gone to it being impermissible to donate that there's a minority of schools that allowed it but the majority didn't allow it after death test taking place.
What is the reasoning behind that? So the reasoning behind that is that there's the sanctity of the body that cannot be
overruled or overlooked. and in this situation, that sanctity needs to be preserved unless there's an absolute certainty that there's some sort of benefit that can come out of it. So even in the
transplant is not guaranteed that the transplant will be successful. And it's not guaranteed that that life that it brings to the transplant will be a prolonged benefit. It might just be for a couple of months. So that sanctity that's overlooked in desecrate in the body would not be allowed. Allahu Tanana
is selling
Oregon's I say I have two kidneys in Britain needs one and selling to him. I am simple
Turn on
is selling your kidney Yes. Okay.
But however let's say I donate to him and Mashallah phrase a wealthy man No, we can't work for a few months. And he gives me money to cover my, my needs, you know my living expenses? That's
that's above my level of knowledge will not I do not know
I do not know the answer to this with certainty. One level I know
sorry Repeat
as a cab driver Yeah.
As a camp, okay?
different opinions symptoms time between Maggie mendation
limited minimum
know it's by according to the sun, so when there's no more red light left in the sky, then that is when the time for Asia has begun. And this will remember this will be dependent on the season and it'll be dependent on where you are in the world. So in certain countries, it's a very short time in other countries, it's a longer time. So that's what it's based upon. Now in the situation where the Red Dust from the sky never goes away. Then in that situation you can approximate the safest approximation is 90 minutes. However, if a person is in a situation where they have to work the next day and they show is that like midnight to at 1am in the morning, then in that situation, I don't
see anything wrong with them combining. You can pray Mugler Venetia together and go to bed as long as the model is around 10 o'clock or something like that. I don't see anything wrong with that. Well lo Tanana.
Federal conclude with that inshallah. So next