Is a general proof sufficient for the ruling on a specific issue?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Is a general proof sufficient for the ruling on a specific issue, or is it not sufficient?
The questioner : It is not sufficient.
The Shaykh : Yes, we heard the brother say it is not sufficient, which means that the indication of all general proofs is dropped regarding all their instances. This is a deniable claim. This general proof is sufficient to indicate all its instances until a proof for specification arises. This is the distinguishing feature of this Islamic religion: its proofs are general in order to encompass all the issues that occur. Now, if someone says, "This verse is about someone who is not fasting, what do we say?" We say, "Bring the proof that it is about someone who is not fasting." The verse is general. Therefore, we say that a general proof is sufficient when we use it to derive the ruling on a specific issue. However, in this issue, praise be to Allah, there is a general proof and a specific proof. What is the specific proof? That the one who is ignorant of the ruling does not invalidate his fast?
The questioner : His saying, Exalted is He:[Al-Baqarah 2:187] 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) understood it to be the ordinary thread, so he took two cords, a white cord and a black cord. He began to eat and drink until he began to distinguish between the cords, then he sought a ruling from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who clarified the matter to him.
The Shaykh : And he did not order him to make it up. May Allah reward you. Did you hear the proof, everyone? 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) wanted to fast, so he placed two cords under his pillow, one white and the other black. He would eat and drink and look at these two cords. When the white became distinct from the black for him, he abstained. Then he came to seek a ruling from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him:Sahih Ibn Hibban 14:47 And he did not order him to make it up. Now, what is the proof that ignorance of the reality does not invalidate the fast? The specific proof?
The questioner : The specific proof is the hadith of Asma' bint Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with her), who said:.
The Shaykh : When did they break their fast?
The questioner : During the day of Ramadan.
The Shaykh : But when? In what time period?
The questioner : During the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : Well done. Asma' bint Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: The hadith is authentic in al-Bukhari. Now, what is the point of indication?
The questioner : ... to us that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her to repeat it ... so we know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order them for this.
The Shaykh : And because he did not order them to do this, it is not obligatory for them to make it up. That is all, everyone. Good reasoning. He said that making it up is a ruling; the obligation of making it up is a legal ruling, is it not? A legal ruling. If it had occurred, the Companions would have transmitted it. Since the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not transmit it, we know that it did not occur. If it had been obligatory, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have clarified it and transmitted it to us, because the Shari'ah, praise be to Allah, is preserved.
The questioner : It is not sufficient.
The Shaykh : Yes, we heard the brother say it is not sufficient, which means that the indication of all general proofs is dropped regarding all their instances. This is a deniable claim. This general proof is sufficient to indicate all its instances until a proof for specification arises. This is the distinguishing feature of this Islamic religion: its proofs are general in order to encompass all the issues that occur. Now, if someone says, "This verse is about someone who is not fasting, what do we say?" We say, "Bring the proof that it is about someone who is not fasting." The verse is general. Therefore, we say that a general proof is sufficient when we use it to derive the ruling on a specific issue. However, in this issue, praise be to Allah, there is a general proof and a specific proof. What is the specific proof? That the one who is ignorant of the ruling does not invalidate his fast?
The questioner : His saying, Exalted is He:
And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread
وكلوا واشربوا حتى يتبين لكم الخيط الأبيض من الخيط الأسودThe Shaykh : And he did not order him to make it up. May Allah reward you. Did you hear the proof, everyone? 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) wanted to fast, so he placed two cords under his pillow, one white and the other black. He would eat and drink and look at these two cords. When the white became distinct from the black for him, he abstained. Then he came to seek a ruling from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him:
It is only the whiteness of the day and the darkness of the night
إنما هو بياض النهار وسواد الليلThe questioner : The specific proof is the hadith of Asma' bint Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with her), who said:
We broke our fast on a cloudy day, then the sun appeared
أفطرنا في يوم غيم ثم ظهرت الشمسThe Shaykh : When did they break their fast?
The questioner : During the day of Ramadan.
The Shaykh : But when? In what time period?
The questioner : During the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : Well done. Asma' bint Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them both) said:
We broke our fast on a cloudy day during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), then the sun rose
أفطرنا في يوم غيم على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم طلعت الشمسThe questioner : ... to us that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her to repeat it ... so we know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order them for this.
The Shaykh : And because he did not order them to do this, it is not obligatory for them to make it up. That is all, everyone. Good reasoning. He said that making it up is a ruling; the obligation of making it up is a legal ruling, is it not? A legal ruling. If it had occurred, the Companions would have transmitted it. Since the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not transmit it, we know that it did not occur. If it had been obligatory, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have clarified it and transmitted it to us, because the Shari'ah, praise be to Allah, is preserved.