Clarifying the point of disagreement; namely, that the questioner stipulates that in the single issue that has been addressed and investigated by the imams, the conditions of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) must be present in
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: My master, please allow me... please allow me.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: We need to clarify the point of disagreement now.
The Shaykh: What is it? The point of disagreement is that the professor stipulates that in the single issue that has been addressed and investigated by the imams, the conditions of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) must be present in this researcher in this single issue, do you see?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: I say: No, this is not stipulated, and I will bring examples, and I gave an example of it; he says: I gave an example of it considering him a university graduate, and I say: those who graduate from universities today do not meet these conditions that the scholars established.
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner: Please allow me, my master, please allow me...
The Shaykh: ... Shaykh Ahmad.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me a moment.
The questioner: Please, go on.
The Shaykh: Professor, I am not speaking to you as a person right now, I am speaking to you about a principle, a rule. I say: that these students who graduate from the University of Damascus or the Islamic University or the Saudi University or the universities of the world today do not graduate... as imams who are mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) at all, so you are mistaken in this. But when you limit yourself to a characteristic, I do not discuss it with you; because I have not sat with you, nor have I heard your speech, nor do I want to test you, just as you may not want to test me either. Rather, we are here in a session of sincerity, affection, and understanding.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh: When you come to tell me: I am not one of them - for example - then we have entered a rabbit hole, meaning that you have limited yourself to being at the level of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). I sincerely hope that there are dozens and hundreds of people like you in this world. But returning to your previous words, you stipulated that the one who wants to investigate a single issue and... one of those advanced opinions must have all the means of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning); so you stipulate for the partial mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) the conditions of absolute ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), is this statement correct?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh: This statement is not correct!
The questioner: No, it is not ... .
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner: The absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings).
The Shaykh : It is not authentic.
The questioner: Let me tell you, he did not stipulate the same conditions. The absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) studied the six books of hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) and studied the... whereas he stipulated for the issue everything that was reported in this specific issue, everything related to the issue in which he wants to exercise ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), whereas...
The Shaykh: Where are the six books, Shaykh?
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh: You say: he studied the six books. Where are the six books?
The questioner: At the very least, the six books.
The Shaykh: The imams are earlier than the six books... May Allah guide you.
...
The questioner: ... The mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) studying now in the present time, I do not call a person an absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) if he has not read the six books; because there are many hadiths (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that appear to contradict each other and they require the ability to derive rulings. It happens that among the imams, some were hadith scholars who would ask some jurists about an issue. They found a difference between a hadith scholar and a jurist. He would come and ask him about an issue, and he would issue a fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) for him. He would say to him: Where did you get this fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) for me? He would say to him: From the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that you narrated. Because of the ability to derive rulings, not everyone has the ability to derive rulings...
The Shaykh: We do not disagree on the self-evident. The sensitive point...
The questioner: Everyone, I tell you, it is not one who is concerned with a specific issue, there is a difference between being concerned with...
The Shaykh: Partial ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) does not require the conditions of the absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings)...
The questioner: ... This is not upon him... But knowing the evidence (dalil) for the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) does not - also - take him out of the rank of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). I also think this is self-evident and does not need...
The Shaykh: No, please allow me to tell you; we do not agree to words that we do not understand. The muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence), we said, is derived from the necklace (qaladah).
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Fine, this description applies exactly to the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus zero. As for the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds), this does not apply to him exactly, because obviously we agree; therefore, the matter did not require back and forth or debate or... this is better than that.
The questioner: But it is not a specialization in derivation.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner: He is better in rank, but he does not have a specialization in derivation.
The Shaykh: I said... I said in my previous words, I said in my previous words: derivation is one of the conditions of the absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings), which is...
The questioner: Even in this issue.
The Shaykh: Even in this issue.
The questioner: Yes, meaning it does not take him out of the rank of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), and he is not given the attribute of mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) by it, but he remains a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence). You are giving him the description of a follower, and we say that this follower either followed deliberately, in which case he rose to the rank of mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings); because he took the original source, which is the Book and the Sunnah (the Prophet's way), or it was taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) of an imam, in which case he returned to the original state, which is as he was, remaining a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner: Meaning this follower, if his opinion was based on evidence from the Book and the Sunnah (the Prophet's way), he took the description of a mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) for the issue. Or if his statement was following one of the imams, he remained in the rank of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence); so this is a rank that has no meaning, and I am emphasizing this word "has no meaning" except in the aspect that it is better, but it does not give him the preference of derivation, it does not give him the right of derivation.
The Shaykh: How do you say: "has no meaning" and there is following? How do you say: no meaning?
The questioner: Excuse me, how do you bring me the evidence when it is the point of disagreement?
The Shaykh: How?
The questioner: You say: How can it have no meaning when it is following? That is: as if you are using as evidence for your statement what is the subject of disagreement, which is following.
The Shaykh: What is the status of this statement?
The questioner: You are saying now: How can it have no meaning?
The Shaykh: Please, you are talking about two muqallids (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence), and you say: this muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The questioner: You say: two muqallids (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The Shaykh: Correct, but unfortunately a disagreement is appearing. Do not tell me: I say; because what you said is fully understood. But as He - the Exalted - said:[Al-'Ankabut 29:43], you are now talking about the two muqallids (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence), a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) without a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence), a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence)... But when you come to say: this has no meaning; it is as if we are no longer in agreement, unfortunately, and I hope we will agree soon.
The questioner : If Allah wills.
The Shaykh: When you talk about the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) without, meaning muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus zero, and muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds).
The questioner : Good.
The Shaykh: ... But you say: this has no meaning.
The questioner: In terms of the rank of derivation, we... the rank is either he remained a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) or he rose to...
The Shaykh: Fine, so here there are two aspects; the aspect of derivation and the aspect of following, so you said.
The questioner: What is following?
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master, following the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds).
The questioner: Following the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds); that is: is he following the ruling that he understood from the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds)?
The Shaykh: It is not derivation, Professor, it is not derivation.
The questioner: I am telling you, my master...
The Shaykh: No, no, please, remind me of the details of my previous words.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh: I said: there are hadiths (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) with explicit text on the subject.
The questioner : Excellent.
The Shaykh: For example, for example; I give you an example: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to raise his hands when bowing, and when he raised his head from bowing, he raised his hands," to the end of the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds). This is an explicit text in appearance that may contain a meaning contrary to what appears to the scholar?
The questioner: Knowing that he... brought hadiths (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) I say that he did not...
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: No, this is a mistake without blame, this is not in "Sahih Muslim" at all.
The questioner: We return to...
The Shaykh: It is fine... it is not in "Sahih Muslim".
The questioner: I say: it is in "Sahih Muslim".
The Shaykh: It is not in "Sahih Muslim" the first hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that the Messenger used not to raise his hands when bowing.
The questioner : If Allah wills ... .
The Shaykh: This is about this, in any case... so that it does not break... so you are saying: this is a follower plus a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds)... I say: a follower, you say: it has no meaning regarding derivation, I said: derivation is the function of the mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) in the first place when I answered...
The questioner: ... muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master, so this is a person who heard a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to raise his hands when bowing... he does not need all these sciences.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master, because it is a text that is certain.
The questioner : I am now telling you that, for example, I read an authentic hadith, and I say it is in Muslim, and you say, for example, no. So the point of disagreement is not that it was reported that he did not raise his hands, which is what the Hanafi scholars do. What is the evidence of the Hanafi scholars? Their evidence, is it not?
The Shaykh : Their evidence is well known.
The questioner : Is it not? So if it were a definitive text, we would not have disagreed over it... disagreement over it means... that it is not a definitive text.
The Shaykh : This brings us, my sir, this brings us into the subject of the principles of jurisprudence.
The questioner : And that is... the least a person...
The Shaykh : Allow me a moment.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The causes of disagreement—I hope we do not jump from one topic to another—what you are saying does not negate that this hadith is a text on the subject.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If you allow me, what you are saying does not negate that the hadith is a text on the subject.
The questioner : It is a text on the subject.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : But it also has... a counterpart.
The Shaykh : Allow me, my sir.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Half of the speech—as they say in our region, in the Levant—has no answer, and cutting off the speech forces the speaker to repeat his words three times...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So this hadith that I brought up—for example—this is a text and not an apparent indication; because you distinguish between the indication of a text and the indication of an apparent meaning, is it not? So I am speaking regarding the layperson about a text that does not require means to make him cautious, wondering if this is general or specific, or absolute or... this is a text. But I am now saying, in favor of your argument: this text may be abrogated, for example. So my research is not from here, so that we condition that he must be well-versed in the Sunnah and well-versed in...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ...the principles. Allow me; because I found a scholar who adopted this text.
The questioner : If he is a follower of him.
The Shaykh : Allow me a moment. I have not yet clarified to you that I distinguish between the verse or the hadith; each of their indications is a definitive text. The indication between the verse and the hadith is not definitive, but as the jurists say, it is a probabilistic indication; it could be this, it could be that. So when the layperson is informed of the text, the text is conveyed to him accompanied by... evidence through the imam. So he acts upon it. Do not tell me that he does not know how to derive rulings; because derivation is not regarding the text, but regarding...
The questioner : ...following the principles of the text, or that of the imam who acted upon it?
The Shaykh : I tell you: when the text was conveyed to him and accompanied by... the imam, he follows both of them.
The questioner : Meaning he became...
The Shaykh : ...with both of them.
The questioner: ... Of course.
The Shaykh : Meaning the hadith is clear to him, but he fears that he may have understood it incorrectly, he fears that it may be abrogated, for example, and so on. So when he found an imam among the imams of the Muslims who acted upon it, this took the rank of insight... the imam. And no person, even among the independent jurists—I am making an interjection—among the independent jurists, as we all know... by the understandings and concepts of the Companions.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ...of course, the layman. So this one to whom this text from the hadith was conveyed accompanied by the fact that so-and-so acted upon it, as we said, is not equal to the first man, Professor. But...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Let me finish my point. But you say regarding derivation, he is a follower.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ...I say: there is no derivation here.
The questioner : Taking the ruling from this text and acting upon it, he is a follower.
The Shaykh : Professor, do not... stay in your place. Taking the ruling from the text or deriving from the text, both are the same in effect.
The questioner : You are correct.
The Shaykh : So may Allah bless you, and I am very pleased with your frankness. So both are the same. But I want to say: this text is clear, but out of caution and prudence, in case this text is abrogated despite its clarity, as I said, the guarantee came for this follower of the text; the guarantee came for the follower that so-and-so adopted it.
The questioner : My sir, let us suppose if this guarantee were not there, would he act?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ...upon this text?
The Shaykh : If so, of course, he would not act...
The questioner : He would not act upon this text... by following the imam, not because of the existence of the text.
The Shaykh : Following. Go back to the first rank.
The questioner : And who told you that we agreed that there is... following? Even that is a place of disagreement, not a place of evidence. You consider it evidence. We did not agree on it...
The Shaykh : We agreed that it is a verbal disagreement, my sir.
The questioner : Ah, but we agreed, good.
The Shaykh : Do not forget this.
The questioner : You are right, but... good, it is better in terms of reward, but it is not better in terms of moving from the rank of following; rather, he remains in the rank of following... for people of knowledge... a class known as the followers.
The Shaykh : Now, your rambling around this requires me to ask a question.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: We need to clarify the point of disagreement now.
The Shaykh: What is it? The point of disagreement is that the professor stipulates that in the single issue that has been addressed and investigated by the imams, the conditions of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) must be present in this researcher in this single issue, do you see?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: I say: No, this is not stipulated, and I will bring examples, and I gave an example of it; he says: I gave an example of it considering him a university graduate, and I say: those who graduate from universities today do not meet these conditions that the scholars established.
The questioner: Correct.
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner: Please allow me, my master, please allow me...
The Shaykh: ... Shaykh Ahmad.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me a moment.
The questioner: Please, go on.
The Shaykh: Professor, I am not speaking to you as a person right now, I am speaking to you about a principle, a rule. I say: that these students who graduate from the University of Damascus or the Islamic University or the Saudi University or the universities of the world today do not graduate... as imams who are mujtahids (scholars qualified to derive rulings) at all, so you are mistaken in this. But when you limit yourself to a characteristic, I do not discuss it with you; because I have not sat with you, nor have I heard your speech, nor do I want to test you, just as you may not want to test me either. Rather, we are here in a session of sincerity, affection, and understanding.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh: When you come to tell me: I am not one of them - for example - then we have entered a rabbit hole, meaning that you have limited yourself to being at the level of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). I sincerely hope that there are dozens and hundreds of people like you in this world. But returning to your previous words, you stipulated that the one who wants to investigate a single issue and... one of those advanced opinions must have all the means of ijtihad (independent legal reasoning); so you stipulate for the partial mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) the conditions of absolute ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), is this statement correct?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh: This statement is not correct!
The questioner: No, it is not ... .
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner: The absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings).
The Shaykh : It is not authentic.
The questioner: Let me tell you, he did not stipulate the same conditions. The absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) studied the six books of hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) and studied the... whereas he stipulated for the issue everything that was reported in this specific issue, everything related to the issue in which he wants to exercise ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), whereas...
The Shaykh: Where are the six books, Shaykh?
The questioner : Yes?
The Shaykh: You say: he studied the six books. Where are the six books?
The questioner: At the very least, the six books.
The Shaykh: The imams are earlier than the six books... May Allah guide you.
...
The questioner: ... The mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) studying now in the present time, I do not call a person an absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) if he has not read the six books; because there are many hadiths (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that appear to contradict each other and they require the ability to derive rulings. It happens that among the imams, some were hadith scholars who would ask some jurists about an issue. They found a difference between a hadith scholar and a jurist. He would come and ask him about an issue, and he would issue a fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) for him. He would say to him: Where did you get this fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) for me? He would say to him: From the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that you narrated. Because of the ability to derive rulings, not everyone has the ability to derive rulings...
The Shaykh: We do not disagree on the self-evident. The sensitive point...
The questioner: Everyone, I tell you, it is not one who is concerned with a specific issue, there is a difference between being concerned with...
The Shaykh: Partial ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) does not require the conditions of the absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings)...
The questioner: ... This is not upon him... But knowing the evidence (dalil) for the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) does not - also - take him out of the rank of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). I also think this is self-evident and does not need...
The Shaykh: No, please allow me to tell you; we do not agree to words that we do not understand. The muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence), we said, is derived from the necklace (qaladah).
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Fine, this description applies exactly to the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus zero. As for the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds), this does not apply to him exactly, because obviously we agree; therefore, the matter did not require back and forth or debate or... this is better than that.
The questioner: But it is not a specialization in derivation.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner: He is better in rank, but he does not have a specialization in derivation.
The Shaykh: I said... I said in my previous words, I said in my previous words: derivation is one of the conditions of the absolute mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings), which is...
The questioner: Even in this issue.
The Shaykh: Even in this issue.
The questioner: Yes, meaning it does not take him out of the rank of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), and he is not given the attribute of mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) by it, but he remains a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence). You are giving him the description of a follower, and we say that this follower either followed deliberately, in which case he rose to the rank of mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings); because he took the original source, which is the Book and the Sunnah (the Prophet's way), or it was taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) of an imam, in which case he returned to the original state, which is as he was, remaining a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner: Meaning this follower, if his opinion was based on evidence from the Book and the Sunnah (the Prophet's way), he took the description of a mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) for the issue. Or if his statement was following one of the imams, he remained in the rank of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence); so this is a rank that has no meaning, and I am emphasizing this word "has no meaning" except in the aspect that it is better, but it does not give him the preference of derivation, it does not give him the right of derivation.
The Shaykh: How do you say: "has no meaning" and there is following? How do you say: no meaning?
The questioner: Excuse me, how do you bring me the evidence when it is the point of disagreement?
The Shaykh: How?
The questioner: You say: How can it have no meaning when it is following? That is: as if you are using as evidence for your statement what is the subject of disagreement, which is following.
The Shaykh: What is the status of this statement?
The questioner: You are saying now: How can it have no meaning?
The Shaykh: Please, you are talking about two muqallids (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence), and you say: this muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The questioner: You say: two muqallids (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The Shaykh: Correct, but unfortunately a disagreement is appearing. Do not tell me: I say; because what you said is fully understood. But as He - the Exalted - said:
And these examples We present to the people
وَتِلْكَ الْأَمْثَالُ نَضْرِبُهَا لِلنَّاسِThe questioner : If Allah wills.
The Shaykh: When you talk about the muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) without, meaning muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus zero, and muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) plus a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds).
The questioner : Good.
The Shaykh: ... But you say: this has no meaning.
The questioner: In terms of the rank of derivation, we... the rank is either he remained a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence) or he rose to...
The Shaykh: Fine, so here there are two aspects; the aspect of derivation and the aspect of following, so you said.
The questioner: What is following?
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master, following the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds).
The questioner: Following the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds); that is: is he following the ruling that he understood from the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds)?
The Shaykh: It is not derivation, Professor, it is not derivation.
The questioner: I am telling you, my master...
The Shaykh: No, no, please, remind me of the details of my previous words.
The questioner: Go ahead.
The Shaykh: I said: there are hadiths (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) with explicit text on the subject.
The questioner : Excellent.
The Shaykh: For example, for example; I give you an example: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to raise his hands when bowing, and when he raised his head from bowing, he raised his hands," to the end of the hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds). This is an explicit text in appearance that may contain a meaning contrary to what appears to the scholar?
The questioner: Knowing that he... brought hadiths (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) I say that he did not...
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: No, this is a mistake without blame, this is not in "Sahih Muslim" at all.
The questioner: We return to...
The Shaykh: It is fine... it is not in "Sahih Muslim".
The questioner: I say: it is in "Sahih Muslim".
The Shaykh: It is not in "Sahih Muslim" the first hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that the Messenger used not to raise his hands when bowing.
The questioner : If Allah wills ... .
The Shaykh: This is about this, in any case... so that it does not break... so you are saying: this is a follower plus a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds)... I say: a follower, you say: it has no meaning regarding derivation, I said: derivation is the function of the mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings) in the first place when I answered...
The questioner: ... muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence).
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master, so this is a person who heard a hadith (a report of the Prophet's words or deeds) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to raise his hands when bowing... he does not need all these sciences.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Please allow me, my master, because it is a text that is certain.
The questioner : I am now telling you that, for example, I read an authentic hadith, and I say it is in Muslim, and you say, for example, no. So the point of disagreement is not that it was reported that he did not raise his hands, which is what the Hanafi scholars do. What is the evidence of the Hanafi scholars? Their evidence, is it not?
The Shaykh : Their evidence is well known.
The questioner : Is it not? So if it were a definitive text, we would not have disagreed over it... disagreement over it means... that it is not a definitive text.
The Shaykh : This brings us, my sir, this brings us into the subject of the principles of jurisprudence.
The questioner : And that is... the least a person...
The Shaykh : Allow me a moment.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The causes of disagreement—I hope we do not jump from one topic to another—what you are saying does not negate that this hadith is a text on the subject.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If you allow me, what you are saying does not negate that the hadith is a text on the subject.
The questioner : It is a text on the subject.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : But it also has... a counterpart.
The Shaykh : Allow me, my sir.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Half of the speech—as they say in our region, in the Levant—has no answer, and cutting off the speech forces the speaker to repeat his words three times...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Allow me.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : So this hadith that I brought up—for example—this is a text and not an apparent indication; because you distinguish between the indication of a text and the indication of an apparent meaning, is it not? So I am speaking regarding the layperson about a text that does not require means to make him cautious, wondering if this is general or specific, or absolute or... this is a text. But I am now saying, in favor of your argument: this text may be abrogated, for example. So my research is not from here, so that we condition that he must be well-versed in the Sunnah and well-versed in...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ...the principles. Allow me; because I found a scholar who adopted this text.
The questioner : If he is a follower of him.
The Shaykh : Allow me a moment. I have not yet clarified to you that I distinguish between the verse or the hadith; each of their indications is a definitive text. The indication between the verse and the hadith is not definitive, but as the jurists say, it is a probabilistic indication; it could be this, it could be that. So when the layperson is informed of the text, the text is conveyed to him accompanied by... evidence through the imam. So he acts upon it. Do not tell me that he does not know how to derive rulings; because derivation is not regarding the text, but regarding...
The questioner : ...following the principles of the text, or that of the imam who acted upon it?
The Shaykh : I tell you: when the text was conveyed to him and accompanied by... the imam, he follows both of them.
The questioner : Meaning he became...
The Shaykh : ...with both of them.
The questioner: ... Of course.
The Shaykh : Meaning the hadith is clear to him, but he fears that he may have understood it incorrectly, he fears that it may be abrogated, for example, and so on. So when he found an imam among the imams of the Muslims who acted upon it, this took the rank of insight... the imam. And no person, even among the independent jurists—I am making an interjection—among the independent jurists, as we all know... by the understandings and concepts of the Companions.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ...of course, the layman. So this one to whom this text from the hadith was conveyed accompanied by the fact that so-and-so acted upon it, as we said, is not equal to the first man, Professor. But...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Let me finish my point. But you say regarding derivation, he is a follower.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : ...I say: there is no derivation here.
The questioner : Taking the ruling from this text and acting upon it, he is a follower.
The Shaykh : Professor, do not... stay in your place. Taking the ruling from the text or deriving from the text, both are the same in effect.
The questioner : You are correct.
The Shaykh : So may Allah bless you, and I am very pleased with your frankness. So both are the same. But I want to say: this text is clear, but out of caution and prudence, in case this text is abrogated despite its clarity, as I said, the guarantee came for this follower of the text; the guarantee came for the follower that so-and-so adopted it.
The questioner : My sir, let us suppose if this guarantee were not there, would he act?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ...upon this text?
The Shaykh : If so, of course, he would not act...
The questioner : He would not act upon this text... by following the imam, not because of the existence of the text.
The Shaykh : Following. Go back to the first rank.
The questioner : And who told you that we agreed that there is... following? Even that is a place of disagreement, not a place of evidence. You consider it evidence. We did not agree on it...
The Shaykh : We agreed that it is a verbal disagreement, my sir.
The questioner : Ah, but we agreed, good.
The Shaykh : Do not forget this.
The questioner : You are right, but... good, it is better in terms of reward, but it is not better in terms of moving from the rank of following; rather, he remains in the rank of following... for people of knowledge... a class known as the followers.
The Shaykh : Now, your rambling around this requires me to ask a question.
The questioner: Go ahead.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.