Did he speak about the issue of the abrogating and the abrogated?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : I raised earlier the rule of the abrogating and the abrogated. The scholars, as far as we know, say: "One does not resort to claiming abrogation unless reconciliation is impossible." Do you have an objection to this?
The questioner : And I add another condition, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : And the knowledge of history?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. And the knowledge of history regarding the claim of abrogation? We say one does not resort to abrogation!
The questioner: How.
The Shaykh : This is the opposite of what we say!
The questioner : How, my Shaykh?
The questioner : The other: The speechThe Shaykh : is precise that one does not resort to abrogation now, meaning heThe Shaykh : denies abrogation?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The other: You are now denying abrogation after knowing the history!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The other: This is the opposite.
The Shaykh : ...
The questioner : What I understood from the speech ofThe Shaykh : is that abrogation is not mentioned except after the condition he mentioned,The Shaykh : which is the absence of.
The Shaykh : Unless reconciliation is impossible.
The questioner : Yes, the impossibility of reconciliation. So I say, and another condition is added to it, which is also the knowledge of history.
The Shaykh : This is wrong, my brother. May Allah guide you.
The questioner : Okay, how, O Shaykh? Correct me.
The Shaykh : This is said when a claimant claims that this is abrogating. You say, with the condition of knowing the history, I say the opposite.
The questioner : What are we discussing, O Shaykh? The speech I said is: one does not resort to abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation!
The Shaykh : Yes, we are done. We are at ease. You are contradicting me on this!
The questioner : O Shaykh, I am adding another condition!
The Shaykh : My brother, this addition comes later!
The questioner : The other: In the proof now, there is only denial
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : This is how we need to work, my brother.
The questioner : O Shaykh, excuse me. My brother, the brother Ahmad Masilh, told me to think about it.
The Shaykh: How.
The questioner : The brother Ahmad Masilh whispered to me saying, "Think about it." So I want to ask what you understood from it, to see if I or someone else understood what I understood or not.
The Shaykh : No, we agreed that it is between you and me, and leave the people alone.
The students: Hehe.
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Hehehe.
The questioner : One does not resort to reconciliation or abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation in any way, and the knowledge of history are two conditions for abrogation.
The Shaykh : This speech is wrong.
The questioner : Okay, O Shaykh, what is correct?
The Shaykh : The correct thing is only that one does not resort to abrogation unless reconciliation is impossible. So we do not resort to reconciliation. You say if we resort to reconciliation, we condition the knowledge of history. That is not our subject. We do not need to claim that this is abrogating and this is abrogated as long as reconciliation is possible.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is there a need for the knowledge of history in this case?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : If Allah forgives you.
The questioner : The other: Well, O Shaykh, if the history differs and reconciliation is possible
The Shaykh : Be patient, my brother. Let us stick to one thing. May Allah guide you. You are the second one. Let us stick to one thing now. The first one, and we praise Allah that finally we agreed and the matter became clear. The condition you are imposing, may Allah reward you, is not in the negative sentence "one does not resort to reconciliation or abrogation if reconciliation is possible."
The questioner : One does not resort.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : One does not resort to abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible in any way.
The Shaykh : If your condition is not applicable, but you, for example, or I, if this is claimed as abrogating and this as abrogated, your condition comes here. It becomes a positive claim, whereas our claim is negative: one does not resort to claiming abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible. There is no condition here. The condition is the possibility of reconciliation. Clear, if Allah wills!
The questioner : This is clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : As for your saying that this has a deficiency!
The questioner : What does that mean?
The Shaykh : You must add to it. You must.
The questioner : The demonstrative pronoun indicates proximity, and you are close to it, and the issue is close!
The Shaykh : Haha, excuse me, I didn't understand. What is correct? You must say it this way. My claim is that this is also.
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh: Hehehe.
The questioner : Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh: Hehehe.
The questioner : I am rambling.
The Shaykh : Oh Allah, I firmly believe, perhaps as they say, I am not revealing a secret regarding you, that I have lived with this issue for years and you know well, as long as you have studied the subject, how many responses came to us and were directed to us, and so on. And therefore I say the opposite of what you said. All these first and second rules, and the third will come to you. It is not possible to delve into such an issue except after agreeing on these principles and these rules. The third rule, as I claim, is the exception of the less from the more. What is your opinion of this rule?
The questioner : An exception.
The Shaykh : The less from the more.
The questioner : I didn't understand anything about the question. What is meant, O Shaykh?
The questioner : And I add another condition, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : And the knowledge of history?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. And the knowledge of history regarding the claim of abrogation? We say one does not resort to abrogation!
The questioner: How.
The Shaykh : This is the opposite of what we say!
The questioner : How, my Shaykh?
The questioner : The other: The speechThe Shaykh : is precise that one does not resort to abrogation now, meaning heThe Shaykh : denies abrogation?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The other: You are now denying abrogation after knowing the history!
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : The other: This is the opposite.
The Shaykh : ...
The questioner : What I understood from the speech ofThe Shaykh : is that abrogation is not mentioned except after the condition he mentioned,The Shaykh : which is the absence of.
The Shaykh : Unless reconciliation is impossible.
The questioner : Yes, the impossibility of reconciliation. So I say, and another condition is added to it, which is also the knowledge of history.
The Shaykh : This is wrong, my brother. May Allah guide you.
The questioner : Okay, how, O Shaykh? Correct me.
The Shaykh : This is said when a claimant claims that this is abrogating. You say, with the condition of knowing the history, I say the opposite.
The questioner : What are we discussing, O Shaykh? The speech I said is: one does not resort to abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation!
The Shaykh : Yes, we are done. We are at ease. You are contradicting me on this!
The questioner : O Shaykh, I am adding another condition!
The Shaykh : My brother, this addition comes later!
The questioner : The other: In the proof now, there is only denial
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : This is how we need to work, my brother.
The questioner : O Shaykh, excuse me. My brother, the brother Ahmad Masilh, told me to think about it.
The Shaykh: How.
The questioner : The brother Ahmad Masilh whispered to me saying, "Think about it." So I want to ask what you understood from it, to see if I or someone else understood what I understood or not.
The Shaykh : No, we agreed that it is between you and me, and leave the people alone.
The students: Hehe.
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Hehehe.
The questioner : One does not resort to reconciliation or abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation in any way, and the knowledge of history are two conditions for abrogation.
The Shaykh : This speech is wrong.
The questioner : Okay, O Shaykh, what is correct?
The Shaykh : The correct thing is only that one does not resort to abrogation unless reconciliation is impossible. So we do not resort to reconciliation. You say if we resort to reconciliation, we condition the knowledge of history. That is not our subject. We do not need to claim that this is abrogating and this is abrogated as long as reconciliation is possible.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is there a need for the knowledge of history in this case?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : If Allah forgives you.
The questioner : The other: Well, O Shaykh, if the history differs and reconciliation is possible
The Shaykh : Be patient, my brother. Let us stick to one thing. May Allah guide you. You are the second one. Let us stick to one thing now. The first one, and we praise Allah that finally we agreed and the matter became clear. The condition you are imposing, may Allah reward you, is not in the negative sentence "one does not resort to reconciliation or abrogation if reconciliation is possible."
The questioner : One does not resort.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : One does not resort to abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible in any way.
The Shaykh : If your condition is not applicable, but you, for example, or I, if this is claimed as abrogating and this as abrogated, your condition comes here. It becomes a positive claim, whereas our claim is negative: one does not resort to claiming abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible. There is no condition here. The condition is the possibility of reconciliation. Clear, if Allah wills!
The questioner : This is clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : As for your saying that this has a deficiency!
The questioner : What does that mean?
The Shaykh : You must add to it. You must.
The questioner : The demonstrative pronoun indicates proximity, and you are close to it, and the issue is close!
The Shaykh : Haha, excuse me, I didn't understand. What is correct? You must say it this way. My claim is that this is also.
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh: Hehehe.
The questioner : Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh: Hehehe.
The questioner : I am rambling.
The Shaykh : Oh Allah, I firmly believe, perhaps as they say, I am not revealing a secret regarding you, that I have lived with this issue for years and you know well, as long as you have studied the subject, how many responses came to us and were directed to us, and so on. And therefore I say the opposite of what you said. All these first and second rules, and the third will come to you. It is not possible to delve into such an issue except after agreeing on these principles and these rules. The third rule, as I claim, is the exception of the less from the more. What is your opinion of this rule?
The questioner : An exception.
The Shaykh : The less from the more.
The questioner : I didn't understand anything about the question. What is meant, O Shaykh?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.