The issue: The rule among the jurists of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) is that a command implies obligation, and a prohibition implies prohibition, unless there is an indicator to the contrary.

The questioner : After Maghrib, O Shaykh, we were discussing an issue in usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) with some of the brothers, and I asked a group of scholars about it. The issue is the rule among the jurists of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that a command implies obligation, and a prohibition implies prohibition, unless there is an indicator or a factor that diverts the meaning.

The Shaykh: Perfect.

The questioner : There are, O Shaykh, dozens of commands and dozens of prohibitions, some of which are interpreted as permissibility or recommendation, and some commands as dislike, even without a diverting factor. The question, O Shaykh, is why did they establish this rule? And is it possible for the rule to be verbal, practical, or derived from reality?

The Shaykh : Yes, of course, it is derived from tracking. A rule is established and rooted based on the scholars' tracking of the individual words of hadiths, verses, and rulings. But the truth is that the statement that the default ruling for a command is obligation is the only basis on which people can deal with matters. Departing from this rule requires an indicator. However, here something may occur where some people observe an indicator and others do not observe it; this can happen. But because such a disagreement occurs between two imams, or two scholars, or two students of knowledge, this should not lead us to invalidate the fundamental rule, which is that the default ruling for a command is obligation.

The questioner : We, O Shaykh, do not invalidate it, but we say that some of it is [different]. For example, O Shaykh: When we studied in the college, the teachers mentioned this rule and cited seven examples. Among them was the hadith: , and writing and witnessing in sales, and writing on... They said that some went to the view of the majority that it is obligatory, while others differed and said it is recommended. So we ask: What is the indicator for those who said it is recommended? Or what is the diverting factor for them?

The Shaykh : Every text must be studied on its own. And the one who adopts the view that the command in these examples is for obligation should be asked. As for , there is nothing that diverts the command for the capable person from obligation to recommendation. As for witnessing, the Companions dealt with each other, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) dealt with them without doubt; this is practical evidence that the command is not for obligation. As I said earlier, if, for example, a question is asked after a prohibition, the prohibition can be interpreted... or if I say now, after a command, the command can be interpreted as not being for obligation. So the practice of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in his buying and selling with people, and the Companions following that, without witnessing or writing; this is the greatest evidence and the greatest indicator that the command is not for obligation. So some may be correct when they exemplify a command as not being for obligation, and some may be wrong. And the matter, like all issues of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), is that a person follows what the evidence establishes, and that is all. As for you imagining that every established rule means one hundred percent, that there is no general rule that has been specified, except for very rare cases. But the issue is, without doubt, you have read in usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) their disagreement on whether a command implies obligation or not? There is disagreement. Some, even some political groups, adopt the view that a command is not for obligation. And I believe that knowledge is not what leads them to adopt this deviant rule, which strays from the straight path, but rather it is to facilitate the violation of many, many commands, which they claim is for the sake of making things easy for people and facilitating them.
The Shaykh: But I believe that linguistic usage—if we leave the Shari'ah aside for now, which is the default without doubt—but in order to convince people, language cannot be the basis for understanding, as our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) created languages and made them the cause of understanding between people. It is not possible for this language to be the basis for understanding if it is said that a command is not for obligation. It is not possible. And a joke or incident happened to me that may be useful to mention. Once, while I was in the Zahiriyyah Library, one of my brother students came to me. He was under the supervision of a teacher in the library. This teacher, or this professor, adopts the view that a command is not for obligation, but rather every command requires observing its indicator; if it indicates obligation, then it is obligation; if recommendation, then recommendation; if exhortation, then exhortation; if permissibility, then permissibility, and so on. So he came to me complaining, saying: So-and-so has exhausted me greatly with this research. His teacher is a strong student of knowledge, and our companion is a beginner. So it is not possible for us to teach him arguments. And I saw that I should guide him to a decisive path in the matter, and indeed it was so. I said: Whenever your teacher orders you to do something from the shop, say in the Syrian dialect "Tannish," which means act as if you did not hear. Of course, the teacher will get angry and say: Hey, so-and-so, did I not tell you to bring such-and-such? He says to him: O Professor, but the command does not imply obligation. It would take an hour for him not to respond to that. And indeed, the problem between me and him ended through this path. This is in the complication of... people. The father says to his son: Do such-and-such. He does not do it. Why? Because it needs an indicator for us to understand that this command is for obligation. And the teacher says to his employee, and so on. The prince to his subordinate. This is the nullification of people's interests!! And with that, the nullification of the Shari'ah. Therefore, it is good to adopt the rule, but do not scratch it, because sometimes the jurists differ on some commands; some say this and some say that. So fear Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and search for the evidence of each of them, and take what your soul is reassured by and your chest opens to.

The questioner : If they follow the path of the shopkeeper, O Shaykh? Let alone the question here is not about dislike, so we ask even in...
...