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, even though we know that it was not applied in its absolute sense during the time of the Prophethood and the Message. Likewise, it is not permissible for us to come to a general text and apply it in its generality, even though we know that it was not applied in its generality. 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 restriction based solely on 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 to you this dangerous and important rule, in addition to the hadith we were discussing, is to bring you closer to this topic with the well-known verse: . If we wanted to interpret this verse relying only on the Arabic style, we would understand from His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): , 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 this thief and that one both equal in that they 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 amount does not permit cutting off the hand of this thief.
So, how do we finally understand ? The “al” is for definiteness (the known), not for generality and comprehensiveness; meaning: the one who stole what is worth a quarter of a dinar or more is the one who deserves the cutting off mentioned in the complete verse, and so is 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—may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him.
Then He, the Exalted, said: . Do you see, is the hand in the language limited to the palm, or does it include the forearm, or is all of this considered a hand? All of this is a hand. Do you see, if someone steals a quarter of a dinar or more, is it permissible to cut off his hand from here? Linguistically, the answer is yes, because it is a hand; wherever you cut, you have cut off the hand. But legally, is it permissible to cut off the thief's hand from here? The answer is no. Where did we take this from? From the practical, real-world 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 that have not been acted upon in practice, and they use them as evidence, saying: "The general text is a proof." We say: Yes, but if the general text has not been acted upon in its generality, it is not a proof. If it has not been acted upon in its generality, it is not a proof.