The Categories of Legal Rulings.

The Shaykh : And you, in your current state of asking questions, remind me of the necessity of another benefit. The scholars divide the legal rulings into two categories:
A purely devotional category, where there is no room for the intellect; it is absolute submission. The Shari'ah came this way, so we submit. The other category also requires submission, but the intellect has room to think there: "I wonder what the reason is that the Messenger (peace be upon him) said such and such, and he commanded such and such, and he prohibited such and such." So there is another category, which they call the counterpart to the first category. We know that the first category is called devotional, and to add to that, devotional in a way that its meaning is not rationally comprehensible. The second category is rationally comprehensible in its meaning. Let us take, for example, two clear examples. The first example is most acts of worship, such as the five prayers: four, four, four, three rak'ahs, two rak'ahs; why? What is the wisdom in that? Allah knows best; , loud recitation and silent recitation, loud without silent, silent without loud; why? What is the wisdom? Allah knows best, it is devotional.
Our Lord wanted to impose obligations on us to test us . Among the tests is that He made obligatory upon us acts of worship whose meaning is not rationally comprehensible, to see if we will philosophize like the scholars of theology and logic and the like, or if we will acknowledge our servitude to Allah, submit to Him, and submit absolutely.
From another angle, He legislated for us rulings of another type that are rationally comprehensible in their meaning, because Islam in its entirety is intellect; , , and so on. But the first category is necessary for the servitude of man to his Creator to appear. We gave the example just now of the five prayers and the different forms in them, as we explained. Many people in the present age who philosophize try to strain themselves to uncover the wisdom behind this difference between these five prayers. So we say: this is purely devotional.
The second category is rationally comprehensible in its meaning. If we recall, for example, his saying (peace be upon him): , these are prohibitions. Among them, for example, is: "He prohibited the sale of gharar (excessive uncertainty in a contract)." No one asks: why did he prohibit the sale of gharar? Because the wisdom is clear due to the harm or the deception of the buyer by the seller. And so on. These are rulings that are rationally comprehensible in their meaning.
So among the scholars in these two categories, there are those who think and research, and there are those who are stagnant and hesitant because they fear that their foot may slip in some of the rulings, and they will strain to claim that it is rationally comprehensible, and they will bring forth something that is not sound. This is from one aspect. From another aspect, they are scrupulous about philosophizing about the legal rulings, even if they are from the second category—that is, rationally comprehensible in meaning—unless it is clear and obvious like the sun in the fourth hour of the day. They are scrupulous about trying to attribute some of the legal rulings to wisdoms and benefits for the servants, and why? And this is something I have touched with my hand in some of the youth: if they are trained or accustomed to receiving the legal ruling accompanied by the rational reason, they become, over time, unable to accept the legal rulings unless they are accompanied by rational reasons or rational explanations. So they fall into doubt about some of the legal rulings because they did not know their ruling. And we say: this is an understanding whose appearance is mercy and whose reality is torment; because the matter, as we said earlier, is by the endings; deeds are by their endings. So if it is among the issues of training students of knowledge to accept the legal rulings accompanied by rational explanations, they will become accustomed to not accepting what is from the first category, that is, purely devotional.
And therefore, I am scrupulous and avoid, in most cases—especially if the ruling or if the reasons are not clear—I do not strain my self and my mind to uncover the wisdom of the legislation, as it is said in this time. But sometimes the matter is very clear and does not require straining, but only requires reminding. ... Now, a person is sitting in the mosque or in any place, not leaning in the way I am leaning, and he was somewhat tired. What helps him to lean towards rest and that drowsiness that is usually followed by sleep? If he is leaning, that is faster for him to reach drowsiness, or if he is not leaning? This is known by experience. Of this type of leaning is al-ibtida' (sitting with knees drawn up). So when a person does al-ibtida' like this in the mosque and the orator is delivering the sermon on Friday, the nature of man will try to imprint on this person the preliminaries of drowsiness, then sleep comes after drowsiness. And what may result from that is not just that he misses the benefit of the remembrance that he was commanded in the Noble Book to strive for, but it may also be a cause for the invalidation of his prayer; because many people we see in the mosques—and most of them are from the common people—do not care to understand what the orator said. And so they lean towards rest—excuse me—what? Yes?

Another questioner : They lean.

The Shaykh : They lean towards rest, and they surrender to drowsiness initially, then they sleep. And when the prayer is established, he wakes up, stands up and prays. And you... and the Messenger (peace be upon him) says: , so whoever sleeps, let him perform wudu (ablution). And it happened to one of the imams of hadith and fiqh, Abu 'Ubaydah al-Qasim ibn Sallam, or Salam, do you remember the correct spelling? Yes? With the light lam?

Another questioner : Sallam.

The Shaykh : Sallam, yes, it happened to this noble imam, jurist, and hadith scholar, the following story: He says: "I used to think before that the sleep of one who is sitting firmly does not break the wudu, until it happened to me once on Friday and the orator was delivering the sermon; a man slept next to me. So when the prayer was established, I said to him: 'O so-and-so, you slept, so go and perform wudu; because you have passed wind.' He said: 'No, I did not pass wind, you passed wind!' , and he was actually sitting firmly, meaning the imam noticed that he was sitting firmly, and yet wind came out of him; so what is circulated from old and new that the sleep of one who is sitting firmly does not break the wudu because he does not usually pass wind; this is possible that it is the majority case, if he is actually sitting firmly, it is possible that he does not pass wind, but the drowsy person cannot control himself, he may lean to the right and to the left, and there it releases...; so we must take the hadith in its generality , so we must exclude the means that bring sleep to the one sitting on Friday listening to the orator. Among them is that it came in some narrations that whoever is overcome by drowsiness, let him change his place. Now this is an example of the category whose what is known? Its wisdoms. Why did he say: ? Because changing the place removes drowsiness from that person. So al-ibtida', if we suppose that its hadith is weak in chain, but here it is said that it is rationally comprehensible in its meaning. And it is not usually required that the weakness of the chain of a hadith—even if it has nothing to strengthen it—means that the text of the hadith is not acceptable in its meaning legally; for example, you find some signs written on them: "The head of wisdom is the fear of Allah," this is a weak hadith, but its meaning is very beautiful. But what is the difference between our saying: "Its meaning is beautiful," and our saying: "A weak hadith"? That is: it is not permissible for us to say: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, as long as its chain is not established. But from the perspective of looking at its meaning, like any word said by any person, whether he was a scholar or a poet or or and so on; so his speech may be correct and may be wrong. So if there is a hadith that is weak in chain and has nothing to strengthen it, it is possible that its meaning is acceptable, and it is possible that its meaning is rejected. And weak hadiths, even fabricated ones, do not exceed one of these two categories.
When some of the critics among the imams of hadith mention the biography of certain narrators, they say, for example—and this is the phrase of Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him), which has become a technical term for him—“So-and-so narrates denunciations or difficult narrations from trustworthy narrators.” By this, he means that he has studied the texts of the hadiths he narrates and found them to be denounced, and found that he attributes them to trustworthy narrators who it is inconceivable would narrate such denunciations. For example, we now use: “The head of wisdom is the fear of Allah” as an example of a weak hadith, but its meaning contains the utmost wisdom. However, when a person hears the hadith: “The miser is what? An enemy of Allah, even if he is what? A worshipper, and the generous one is the beloved of Allah, even if he is an open sinner,” the Shari'ah rejects it; because a person does not draw near to Allah with a good trait, nor does he distance himself from the mercy of Allah with a bad trait. And when we hear the hadith: “The eggplant, when eaten, removes the veil,” the cover is lifted and it appears that it is a meaning that is patently false. These weak hadiths contain correct meanings—sometimes—and incorrect meanings—sometimes. So the hadith: is, in terms of narration, good or authentic—I do not remember the exact grade now—and in terms of meaning, it is very reasonable; because sitting in a hunched position brings on drowsiness, and drowsiness brings on sleep, and in that is an exposure for this person who is sitting hunched to lose one of two necessary things, which is that he does not benefit from the sermon of the preacher. This is my answer to what you asked.