Regarding coffee and tea, what is your opinion of them? Tea is a nerve calmer, and coffee contains caffeine, which is a stimulant and energizer. So what do you say?

The questioner:
Shaykh, in another question—regarding coffee and tea—what is your opinion of them? Tea is a nerve calmer, and coffee contains caffeine, which is a stimulant and energizer. So what do you say?
About them?

The Shaykh : My opinion of them is as in the hadith you mentioned: there is no harm and no reciprocating harm. But does drinking tea mean it causes clear harm? And coffee is the same. If
it does not cause harm, because the amount a person takes as a drink contains a very small percentage of this narcotic substance—then in that case, we cannot issue a ruling
of prohibition. For example, if a person eats lawful food that has no issue, and he eats more than that, there is no doubt that this food contains harm. So this food is not prohibited in itself
because it is lawful, but what causes harm from it is prohibited. So if the doctors confirm that drinking tea or coffee in the amounts people are accustomed to has
no clear, obvious harm in it, then it remains lawful. As for overdoing it, which causes harm in the opinion of the doctors, of course, and there is no doubt that a person cannot
be a doctor, a scholar, a hadith scholar, and a Qur'anic exegete. Rather, as Allah the Exalted said:
{So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know}
Therefore, a person should not follow his own opinion, for that is not his specialty. Rather, he must ask the scholars. If the doctors say that drinking tea may
harm the body, then one must stay away from it. But if you took a general statement that it contains such and such a substance, and that however much one takes of it harms him, knowing that there is no specific opinion
as came in the report, where it was said that a little and a lot are forbidden? But as long as there is no such absolute prohibition, then the prohibition is restricted to the harmful part of it,
and not according to our personal perception of the matter. Rather, it is by scientific analysis and the perception of the scholars of it. For this reason, we must distinguish between
the intoxicant and the non-intoxicant. There is the text that was mentioned... Minute 40 - 48


The Shaykh ...days until it hardly appears that this idol is a human being lacking only speech. And you find today many of the scholars today,
and praise be to Allah, saying that this is forbidden. And if it were said that this is lawful, we would also nullify the texts of prohibition regarding images. So here we pause briefly. Now, as you all know,
this idol that is constantly being carved by that so-called artist, day and night, with the press of a button—if he continues carving day and night—shapes and colors come out of it:
some of copper, some of marble, some of plastic, and so on. Do you see? Are these idols that are produced by the press of a button not idols that
were carved on machines? So these are not idols, but rather those that were carved for days. What is the difference between this and that, my brothers? An image of an idol
by way of a machine, just as you draw a picture with a brush and pen, and an image captured by the press of a button in an instant. All these are forms; they are an image of a human being.
Glory be to Allah, and this image that
appears on the water is fixed, and another says the image we see in the mirror is fixed and does not disappear with the departure of that person. And when we say that
the Messenger
Image-making—so why is it forbidden, while it is permissible for a person to look at himself in a mirror and adorn himself? This is what Muslim says, so this is the reality, and do not hold me to this—
image-making—so why did he forbid it and permit a person to play with the mirror and adorn himself? This is what a Muslim says. So this, in reality—and do not hold it against me—
It resembles it—what distracts people from understanding the Islamic ruling—so the Islamic ruling, may Allah reward you, is that we should fulfill what the Exalted said
what is like it diverts people from understanding the legal ruling. The legal ruling, may Allah reward you, is that we should fulfill what Allah the Exalted said:
{So by your Lord, they do not believe until they make you a judge in that which they dispute among themselves, and then they find no discomfort in their souls from what you have judged, and they submit in full submission}
And now a questioner asks: Why did the Messenger forbid the image that was in Aisha's house, which she tore, and permit the image in the mirror or permit the image in the water? This
is not like that. Allah permitted sale and forbade riba (usury or interest). And the polytheists objected: Why does Muhammad (peace be upon him) permit sale and forbid riba? Because there is a difference between what Allah permitted
and what He forbade. Just as He permitted marriage and forbade zina (unlawful sexual intercourse). Just as marriage contains enjoyment and the fulfillment of desire, and zina also contains
enjoyment and the fulfillment of desire.
But where is this compared to that in terms of the outcome? Now, what is the image in the mirror? What is its outcome? Nothing. As for
the images now that we enlarge
and magnify and place in the fronts of gatherings—can it be said that this is like that? No, they are not equal, for example, absolutely not. The important thing is that we must fear Allah
Mighty and Majestic in our religion and in our jurisprudence,
and not let the sweeping current carry us to making lawful what Allah has forbidden through the lowest of tricks, so that we fall into what the Jews fell into, about whom the Messenger
spoke in his saying: "May Allah curse
the Jews. Fat was forbidden to them, so they rendered it liquid and sold it, and they ate its price. And when Allah forbids the eating of something, He forbids its price." May Allah curse
the Jews. Fat was forbidden to them.
And as Allah the Exalted said: {So for the wrongdoing of those who were Jews, We have forbidden them (to eat) good things which were formerly permitted to them, and for their turning (many) people away from the way of Allah}
The Messenger (peace be upon him) pointed to the previous verse in this hadith. Did the Jews have patience with the just ruling of Allah? No,
they did not have patience, but rather they devised a trick against it. What did they do?
He (peace be upon him) said: "May Allah curse the Jews. Fat was forbidden to them, so they rendered it liquid"—rendered it liquid means they melted it. They threw the fat into
large pots and lit a fire underneath it, and when it took on another shape—other than its natural shape—the devil adorned it for them
and said to them: This is not what Allah Mighty and Majestic has forbidden, because of what he adorned for them by changing the shape.
As for the fat, it remains fat by chemical analysis. So they deserved the curse of Allah because of their tricks against the prohibitions of Allah,
one of which was that they did not hunt on the day of Saturday,
but they devised a trick against the fish. They surrounded it until the day of Sunday, and they obtained from the hunting what it would not have been possible for them to obtain if
they had actually hunted on the day of Saturday. Therefore,
the Messenger (peace be upon him) forbade the Muslims from following the first disbelievers who preceded what we have mentioned, that we not devise tricks against
the legal rulings. For example, as some of them said: An image placed
is the same as the other image placed there. So they say that the hand-drawn image
photographic, so it is lawful—Glory be to Allah, we have no money left, and I say—what is the difference between the two images except for the difference in the means?—
photographic image is lawful. Glory be to Allah, we have no money left, and I say: What is the difference between the two images except the difference in the means?
Is this one made by hand lawful,
while the one captured by the camera is much more precise
in terms of the performance of the image than the so-called artist
who drew the image
by hand? And this is one of the misfortunes of the
present age. I call it modern superficiality, and many of the scholars whom we revere and respect have fallen into it. But the slip of a scholar—the slip
of a scholar, as they say—and they
ramble between this and that, and there is no difference between them except the means. What is the difference between the fat taken from the animal—this is forbidden—
and the fat taken from the animal
by means of fire is lawful? Far be it from Allah. Woe because of this habit. I say this is modern superficiality. And it is expected of the people of the age to benefit from the rigidity
of some of the earlier Zahirites. The Messenger of Allah forbade urinating in stagnant water, and this is an authentic hadith with no doubt in it. So one of their Zahirites said: If one urinates in
an empty vessel and then pours this urine from the empty vessel into the stagnant vessel,
then this is permissible. Why? Because the hadith of the prohibition
of the Messenger of Allah from urinating in stagnant water was not fulfilled in it. He urinated in the empty water, but glory be to Allah, what is the difference between this and that? The same difference as between the two images. The goal is that
regarding urinating in stagnant water, meaning— the least that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) intends in this hadith is preserving the purity of the water –
about urinating in stagnant water, meaning—at least what the Messenger (peace be upon him) intended in this hadith is the preservation of the purity of the water.
If it is not the preservation of its
ritual purity, this differs between when the urine is much and the water is much. So the result is that he did not preserve the purity of the water,
and the worst is that he did not preserve the ritual purity of the water.
There is no difference between the two images in the hadith that addressed it immediately, and the image that the Zahirite imagined. So he said: If
In the empty vessel, and pour what is in it into stagnant water—it is permissible—because it did not become wet in the stagnant water—I am speaking in clear, sound Arabic.
There is no issue with the water, but rather with the jurisprudence.
And legally, there is no difference between the two scenarios—I say there is no difference between this scenario and that one—this is a contemporary phenomenon and that one is a historical phenomenon.
That passed long ago, but
history repeats itself—and that is enough, my brother; I do not want us to stay up all night in a cycle that has no beginning or end.
May Allah reward our Shaykh with the best reward, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
From minute 57:15 to 1:10:40—that is, approximately 20 minutes—and it is the same segment from a previous audio recording, repeated—it appeared in the middle of a tape.
{Islamic Society} and it was cut off—and this is its completion—because all the tapes are merged.
So the meaning of this, or the necessity of this, is that the Messenger (peace be upon him) sometimes raised his voice with this supplication—sometimes for the sake of teaching, not for the sake of raising the voice.
with the supplication—because raising the voice in supplication is like raising the voice in dhikr, and its opposite is its original state and its preferred state.