What is the benefit of mentioning the reasoning and evidence for a ruling at a time when the questioner generally cannot comprehend such speech?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : There is a discipline of preference (tarjih) where he chose "no harm and no reciprocating harm." So what is the tool that made him prefer "no harm and no reciprocating harm," given that if he went to the other scholar who tells him that tobacco is subject to the five rulings, he feels in himself that his mind cannot comprehend this, even though it is possible that the correct view is with this other scholar? How does he choose "no harm and no reciprocating harm" when he cannot comprehend that other ruling, and how is this the discipline of preference?
The Shaykh : Imagine yourself in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and you heard this hadith from him, and you have no knowledge of anything else, and a plant is presented to you, and you know that it is harmful and intoxicating, and so on. What do you do? This is what this incapable man did, so let us call him incapable, to summarize your words.
The questioner : So why does he ask for the evidence?
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! So that he may be upon clear understanding. Listen for a moment. We have two men. One asks the scholar about tobacco, and the scholar tells him it is forbidden. The other asks the same question, and the scholar also tells him it is forbidden, because the scholar being asked is the same person. But the second questioner says, "Can you mention to me the argument you relied upon in forbidding tobacco?" Is this one wrong, or is the first one wrong?
The questioner : According to reason, can he bear it?
The Shaykh : You have not answered me. The best speech is that which is brief and effective.
Here are two men, each asking the scholar one question. One is answered that it is forbidden, and he is satisfied with that. The other is not satisfied with that, but adds, as I said earlier, "Can you show me, or explain to me, the argument you relied upon?" He says, "Yes, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan Ibn Majah 2340Da'if (Darussalam)."
The questioner : And is he from the students of knowledge?
The Shaykh : He is from the general Muslims. For your sake, you are from the general Muslims, but he understands what is meant by:Sunan Ibn Majah 2340Da'if (Darussalam). Even if he were a non-Arab who does not understand the Arabic language, and that non-Arab scholar is supposed to understand the Arabic language, he told him, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: No harm and no reciprocating harm." But he explains to him what this speech means in his non-Arab language. Now, we were with the Arabs, and we moved to the non-Arabs. Which of the non-Arabs is on a straighter path and more upright: the second one or the first one?
The questioner : The one who asks for the evidence.
The Shaykh : So, may Allah bless you, the issue does not need all this discussion.
The questioner : But there is a limit in the issue, a limit where he can comprehend what the Shaykh is saying. For example, suppose he is from the general Muslims, may Allah honor you and honor everyone. People do not understand anything, so he comes and asks about tobacco, or asks, "Do we recite al-Fatihah behind the imam or not?" He tells him, "Recite" or "Do not recite." If he then says, "The general specific or the general that was not specified," and if this comes to him, we combine them and apply the absolute general to the specific general, and it weakens it, and we arrive at the result you mentioned. What does this person understand?
The Shaykh : He does not understand this. But allow me, O Shaykh, may Allah guide us and you. Does this person not understand? Do all people not understand?
The questioner : There remains a limit in the issue.
The Shaykh : Who determines the limit, you?!
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So who? Who determines it?
The questioner : The scholar.
The Shaykh : No, the scholar is not in the inner self of the questioner. The questioner is himself, my brother. And this first example is of the type you are mentioning, meaning the one who was told "forbidden" or "permissible," and he was told "forbidden" and he left, not gathering anything. Why? Because he does not possess the scholarly background to ask for the evidence and the argument, and so on. But that one is not like the first one, and therefore he hopes for more knowledge. So why do we care about this? Why does he ask for the evidence, my brother? There are two men, one of whom wants to be clear-sighted. Either he can reach clear-sightedness, or he is incapable of it. As for the other, he may be able to, but he does not care about this ability and does not hold onto it. There is no doubt that one who is upon clear understanding of his religion, within the limits of the intellect, understanding, thought, or knowledge that Allah has given him—if he has knowledge, otherwise not—Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear.
The questioner : There is a discipline of preference (tarjih) where he chose "no harm and no reciprocating harm." So what is the tool that made him prefer "no harm and no reciprocating harm," given that if he went to the other scholar who tells him that tobacco is subject to the five rulings, he feels in himself that his mind cannot comprehend this, even though it is possible that the correct view is with this other scholar? How does he choose "no harm and no reciprocating harm" when he cannot comprehend that other ruling, and how is this the discipline of preference?
The Shaykh : Imagine yourself in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and you heard this hadith from him, and you have no knowledge of anything else, and a plant is presented to you, and you know that it is harmful and intoxicating, and so on. What do you do? This is what this incapable man did, so let us call him incapable, to summarize your words.
The questioner : So why does he ask for the evidence?
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! So that he may be upon clear understanding. Listen for a moment. We have two men. One asks the scholar about tobacco, and the scholar tells him it is forbidden. The other asks the same question, and the scholar also tells him it is forbidden, because the scholar being asked is the same person. But the second questioner says, "Can you mention to me the argument you relied upon in forbidding tobacco?" Is this one wrong, or is the first one wrong?
The questioner : According to reason, can he bear it?
The Shaykh : You have not answered me. The best speech is that which is brief and effective.
Here are two men, each asking the scholar one question. One is answered that it is forbidden, and he is satisfied with that. The other is not satisfied with that, but adds, as I said earlier, "Can you show me, or explain to me, the argument you relied upon?" He says, "Yes, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
It was narrated from 'Ubadah bin Samit that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ruled: “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.”
لا ضرر ولا ضرارThe questioner : And is he from the students of knowledge?
The Shaykh : He is from the general Muslims. For your sake, you are from the general Muslims, but he understands what is meant by:
It was narrated from 'Ubadah bin Samit that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ruled: “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.”
لا ضرر ولا ضرارThe questioner : The one who asks for the evidence.
The Shaykh : So, may Allah bless you, the issue does not need all this discussion.
The questioner : But there is a limit in the issue, a limit where he can comprehend what the Shaykh is saying. For example, suppose he is from the general Muslims, may Allah honor you and honor everyone. People do not understand anything, so he comes and asks about tobacco, or asks, "Do we recite al-Fatihah behind the imam or not?" He tells him, "Recite" or "Do not recite." If he then says, "The general specific or the general that was not specified," and if this comes to him, we combine them and apply the absolute general to the specific general, and it weakens it, and we arrive at the result you mentioned. What does this person understand?
The Shaykh : He does not understand this. But allow me, O Shaykh, may Allah guide us and you. Does this person not understand? Do all people not understand?
The questioner : There remains a limit in the issue.
The Shaykh : Who determines the limit, you?!
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So who? Who determines it?
The questioner : The scholar.
The Shaykh : No, the scholar is not in the inner self of the questioner. The questioner is himself, my brother. And this first example is of the type you are mentioning, meaning the one who was told "forbidden" or "permissible," and he was told "forbidden" and he left, not gathering anything. Why? Because he does not possess the scholarly background to ask for the evidence and the argument, and so on. But that one is not like the first one, and therefore he hopes for more knowledge. So why do we care about this? Why does he ask for the evidence, my brother? There are two men, one of whom wants to be clear-sighted. Either he can reach clear-sightedness, or he is incapable of it. As for the other, he may be able to, but he does not care about this ability and does not hold onto it. There is no doubt that one who is upon clear understanding of his religion, within the limits of the intellect, understanding, thought, or knowledge that Allah has given him—if he has knowledge, otherwise not—Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear.