Some scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) say: One of the obstacles to considering a piece of evidence is the implication of the opposite (mafhum al-mukhalafah), and they prioritize the explicit text (manut) over the implication when there is a conflict. Is there a basis for this rule?

The questioner : The questioner asks: Why do some scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) say that one of the obstacles to considering a piece of evidence is the implication of the opposite (mafhum al-mukhalafah), and therefore they prioritize the explicit text (manut) of the verses and hadiths over the implication derived from them when there is a conflict? Is there a text from the Book and the Sunnah that specifies this rule of theirs, or not? And if there is no text from the Book and the Sunnah for it, what is the ruling on these people in Islam, because they strongly reject the ruling of the implication from the Quranic verses and Prophetic hadiths when it conflicts with the explicit text? For example, they reject the ruling contained in the verse of al-Ma'idah, which is the saying of Allah the Exalted: , claiming that it is an implication, and they take what is contained in the verse of al-An'am, which is the saying of Allah the Exalted: , and they argue with this verse and similar ones to permit the slaughter of everyone on earth, if Allah is mentioned when slaughtering the animal, even if the slaughterer is a polytheist or an apostate. Answer us, may Allah reward you, on this topic? Yes.

The Shaykh : This rule mentioned by the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that the indication of the explicit text (manut) is stronger than the indication of the implication (mafhum) is very clear, because the indication of the explicit text is clear in the place of the utterance, whereas the indication of the implication is indicated by the wording not in the place of the utterance. And what the wording indicates in the place of the utterance is more worthy. And because the indication of the implication may not be intended.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And it may be true in some cases but not in others, unlike the indication of the explicit text, which indicates all its cases by way of direct indication, inclusion, and implication. As for what the questioner mentioned regarding the example of the verse of al-Ma'idah with the verse of al-An'am, there is no doubt that the slaughter of non-Ahl al-Kitab (the People of the Book) is not permissible, because Allah the Exalted specified that by His saying: . This restriction is not a title (laqab) as some of them said, but rather a descriptive restriction, because the relative pronoun is in the position of a description. So if you say, "I am pleased with the one who understood," it is in the position of saying, "I am pleased with the one who understands."

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And "the one who understands" is a description, and it has an implication to which the ruling is attached. So the food of those who were given the Book is like saying, "the food of those who were given the Book." This is a description and not a title, as some of them claimed. Based on this, the indication of the explicit text in it is clear, and the indication of the implication in it is clear, because when the ruling is attached to a description, it is established by its presence and negated by its absence. So the explicit text of the verse is that the food of those who were given the Book is permissible, and the food of those who were not given the Book is not permissible. And with this, the saying of Allah the Exalted means what is slaughtered by one who is qualified for slaughter, which is the Muslim and the Ahl al-Kitab (the People of the Book) from the Jews and the Christians. This is the stronger opinion (rajih) held by the majority of scholars. Yes.

The questioner : Yes, the second question says.