Clarification that the obligation regarding the texts of the Shari'ah is to apply their absolute to their restricted, and their general to their specific.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible for us to come to an absolute text and apply it in its absolute sense today, when we know that it was not applied in its absolute sense during the era of Prophethood and the Message. Likewise, it is not permissible for us to come to a general text and apply it in its general sense when we know that it was not applied in its general sense. Observing this rule saves its adherent from deviation and from falling into innovations in matters in which the masses of people fall when they come to such absolute or general texts and interpret them by restricting themselves only to the Arabic style, without returning to observe what the Messenger (peace be upon him) interpreted, whether by his saying, his doing, or his approval.
Perhaps what will clarify this important and critical rule for you, in addition to the hadith we were discussing, is to bring you closer to this topic through the well-known verse: . If we were to interpret this verse relying only on the Arabic style, we would understand from His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): , that it means any thief, any thief, whether he stole a pencil of lead or a pencil of gold. This one is called a thief and that one is called a thief. Are these two thieves equal in that they both fall under the generality of His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): ? As for the Arabic language, the answer is yes. But as for the Prophetic reality and the Prophetic interpretation, the answer is no. Why? Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say: . Therefore, less than a quarter of the stolen value does not permit cutting off the hand of this thief.
So how do we finally understand ? The "al" is for specification and not for comprehensiveness and inclusion; that is: the one who stole what is worth a quarter of a dinar or more is the one who deserves the cutting mentioned in the full verse, and likewise the female thief.
This is from the side of the absolute mention of the thief in the verse; we understood that this absoluteness is not intended by the verbal explanation of the Messenger (peace be upon him).
Then He said (Glorified and Exalted is He): . Do you see whether the hand in language is limited to the palm, or the forearm, or are all of these a hand? All of these are a hand. Do you see, if one stole a quarter of a dinar or more, is it permissible to cut his hand from here? As for the language, the answer is yes, because it is a hand; wherever you cut, you have cut the hand. But as for the Shari'ah, is it permissible to cut the hand of the thief from here? The answer is no. Where did we take this from? From the practical, operational explanation of the Messenger (peace be upon him); he used to cut from here, not from here, and not from here. This is an example to which hundreds of examples must be added. How much we need today, in the present age, to keep this rule in mind! Because many people come to general texts on which practice has not proceeded, and they argue with them, saying: "The general text is a proof." We say: Correct, but if the general text has not been practiced in its generality, it is not a proof. If it has not been practiced in its generality, it is not a proof.