Is it really true that it is not permissible to conceal any knowledge, even if it is worldly?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There are people today who were in a gathering. It seems they read verse 37 of Surat al-Nisa, and since they were women, one of them explained this verse by saying that it is not permissible for any person to conceal any knowledge they possess from others, no matter what that knowledge is, otherwise they would be in violation. She asked, "Well, suppose one of us, or someone, knows how to make qataif well and has his own recipe that distinguishes him from others, and this is known to us in Ramadan. There is a man in Qadisiyyah who makes qataif, so this is the secret of his trade." It was said that it is not permissible for a person to conceal any knowledge they have, even if it relates to the secret of a profession or something of that sort. So they asked me to inquire from you. I mean, does this fall under the general prohibition of concealing knowledge, or are there things a person can keep to themselves?
The Shaykh : I believe the matter is less serious than we are discussing, because there is evidence that refutes this claim, as it will fall on its own when it is said to the one who adopts it:[Al-Baqarah 2:111] You said a certain verse in Surat al-Nisa, so what is this verse that indicates this general meaning and that it forbids concealing any knowledge? If it does not indicate that, then the matter is naturally void. We want to see where this woman who made this claim got it from.
Al-Halabi :[An-Nisa 4:37] .
The Shaykh : This verse, first of all, does not mention knowledge, so where did she take the indication that it is not permissible to conceal any knowledge? It is the favor (fadl) that reminded us of the verse.
Al-Halabi :[An-Nisa 4:37] .
The questioner : It seems, and Allah knows best, that the favor which Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) gave them, or to one of them, is any knowledge, any thing.
The Shaykh : But that is a mistake, and it is not permissible, because we look at the context of the verse. The verse does not speak about knowledge; we take it from the beginning: "Those who..."
Al-Halabi : "Withhold."
The Shaykh : "Withhold what?" Or give us what comes before it.
Al-Halabi : I looked at what comes before it, and it seems it has no connection.[An-Nisa 4:36-37]
The questioner : Let us take it from you.
The Shaykh : No, the intended meaning here is concealing what is obligatory to disclose, whether it is from knowledge or from wealth. And it is not permissible in any way to take this text absolutely without any Shari'ah restriction, because whoever understands the text absolutely will fall into matters from which no person can escape. I mean, if we assume the verse was about wealth—and it is not about wealth, but is broader than that—if a Muslim pays the zakah of his wealth and still has a very large surplus of wealth, then he is withholding the majority of his wealth and giving only a little of this wealth. Does this Qur'anic text include this man who pays the zakah of his wealth? The answer is, of course, no. And if we return to the general meaning that includes knowledge, knowledge is of two types, as you all know: knowledge that must be disseminated and concealing it is not permissible, which is that which leads to benefit or harm—benefit in its dissemination and harm in its concealment—and that is religious knowledge. People differ in this, as is well known. As for worldly knowledge, it is not possible for any text to include it, especially a text like this which did not come specifically about knowledge, but came with this absolute meaning that includes both knowledge and wealth. Therefore, I say, as you always know, that it is not permissible for a student of knowledge to interpret the Qur'an or the Sunnah independently without relying on the efforts of the scholars and imams who preceded us in this scientific field by large and very large distances. And this is what many people today, men and even more so women, fall into: they take this Qur'an and study it relying on their personal culture, without referring to what came in the interpretation of the verse, especially the interpretation we call... and I have given the example more than once that one who does this comes to a text from the Noble Qur'an or from the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and tries to understand it without relying on the understanding of that text by the previous scholars. It is like one who wants to innovate and invent an airplane without relying on the efforts of the previous scholars who brought this machine to something that almost exceeds imagination. He will be afflicted with what afflicted the one who was the cause of the creation of this airplane, which is like imagination. This is like one who does not rely on the efforts of the predecessors and relies on himself and his own self in interpreting the Qur'an or the Sunnah. This verse, in any case, for any researcher who wants to know its meaning, if this absolute meaning arises in his mind, he should return to the rule I mentioned earlier, which is to rely on those before him. But this may not be sufficient; he must have a general Islamic culture that helps him to understand, for example, what some scholars of usul al-fiqh say about some general texts. They say, "This is a general text intended for the specific," "a general text intended for the specific." This is to escape the rule that a general text must be interpreted according to its generality, but sometimes the specific is intended and not the general. So how can this person distinguish a general text whose generality is not intended but whose specificity is intended, unless he has a general culture? And I recall on this occasion an example, and the examples are many and very many, but perhaps only one example comes to mind, one I recently studied and took as a lesson on this occasion. I say, have you looked at the book about seeking help from disbelievers? This is a new book.
Al-Halabi : The one written by Hassan.
The Shaykh : Who is this Hassan?
Al-Halabi : It is the same Shaykh, our Shaykh, who called you, who was with Shu'ayb.
The Shaykh : This topic is a good research to a large extent. The topic of seeking help from disbelievers, which happened in Saudi Arabia, was actually comprehensively covered.
Al-Halabi : In this issue or in the whole book?
The Shaykh : No, no, in this issue.
Al-Halabi : You are speaking now about the issue.
The Shaykh : I say that this specific issue was spoken about well, but the example I want to mention now is what came before this issue. He addressed the topic of jihad and its virtue, and that the scholars say jihad is of two types.
The Shaykh : I believe the matter is less serious than we are discussing, because there is evidence that refutes this claim, as it will fall on its own when it is said to the one who adopts it:
Produce your proof, if you should be truthful."
هاتوا برهانكم إن كنتم صادقينAl-Halabi :
Who are stingy and enjoin upon [other] people stinginess and conceal what Allah has given them of His bounty - and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment -
الّذين يبخلون و يأمرون النّاس بالبخل و يكتمون ما أتاهم الله من فضله و أعتدنا للكافرين عذابا مهيناThe Shaykh : This verse, first of all, does not mention knowledge, so where did she take the indication that it is not permissible to conceal any knowledge? It is the favor (fadl) that reminded us of the verse.
Al-Halabi :
Who are stingy and enjoin upon [other] people stinginess and conceal what Allah has given them of His bounty - and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment -
الّذين يبخلون و يأمرون النّاس بالبخل و يكتمون ما أتاهم الله من فضله و أعتدنا للكافرين عذابا مهيناThe questioner : It seems, and Allah knows best, that the favor which Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) gave them, or to one of them, is any knowledge, any thing.
The Shaykh : But that is a mistake, and it is not permissible, because we look at the context of the verse. The verse does not speak about knowledge; we take it from the beginning: "Those who..."
Al-Halabi : "Withhold."
The Shaykh : "Withhold what?" Or give us what comes before it.
Al-Halabi : I looked at what comes before it, and it seems it has no connection.
(36) Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful. (37) Who are stingy and enjoin upon [other] people stinginess and conceal what Allah has given them of His bounty - and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment -
و اعبدوا الله و لا تشركوا به شيئا و بالوالدين إحسانا و بذي القربى و اليتامى و المساكين و الجار ذي القربى و الجار الجنب و الصّاحب بالجنب و ابن السّبيل و ما ملكت أيمانكم إنّ الله لا يحبّ من كان مختالا فخورا الّذين يبخلون و يأمرون النّاس بالبخل و يكتمون ما أتاهم الله من فضله و أعتدنا للكافرين عذابا مهيناThe questioner : Let us take it from you.
The Shaykh : No, the intended meaning here is concealing what is obligatory to disclose, whether it is from knowledge or from wealth. And it is not permissible in any way to take this text absolutely without any Shari'ah restriction, because whoever understands the text absolutely will fall into matters from which no person can escape. I mean, if we assume the verse was about wealth—and it is not about wealth, but is broader than that—if a Muslim pays the zakah of his wealth and still has a very large surplus of wealth, then he is withholding the majority of his wealth and giving only a little of this wealth. Does this Qur'anic text include this man who pays the zakah of his wealth? The answer is, of course, no. And if we return to the general meaning that includes knowledge, knowledge is of two types, as you all know: knowledge that must be disseminated and concealing it is not permissible, which is that which leads to benefit or harm—benefit in its dissemination and harm in its concealment—and that is religious knowledge. People differ in this, as is well known. As for worldly knowledge, it is not possible for any text to include it, especially a text like this which did not come specifically about knowledge, but came with this absolute meaning that includes both knowledge and wealth. Therefore, I say, as you always know, that it is not permissible for a student of knowledge to interpret the Qur'an or the Sunnah independently without relying on the efforts of the scholars and imams who preceded us in this scientific field by large and very large distances. And this is what many people today, men and even more so women, fall into: they take this Qur'an and study it relying on their personal culture, without referring to what came in the interpretation of the verse, especially the interpretation we call... and I have given the example more than once that one who does this comes to a text from the Noble Qur'an or from the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and tries to understand it without relying on the understanding of that text by the previous scholars. It is like one who wants to innovate and invent an airplane without relying on the efforts of the previous scholars who brought this machine to something that almost exceeds imagination. He will be afflicted with what afflicted the one who was the cause of the creation of this airplane, which is like imagination. This is like one who does not rely on the efforts of the predecessors and relies on himself and his own self in interpreting the Qur'an or the Sunnah. This verse, in any case, for any researcher who wants to know its meaning, if this absolute meaning arises in his mind, he should return to the rule I mentioned earlier, which is to rely on those before him. But this may not be sufficient; he must have a general Islamic culture that helps him to understand, for example, what some scholars of usul al-fiqh say about some general texts. They say, "This is a general text intended for the specific," "a general text intended for the specific." This is to escape the rule that a general text must be interpreted according to its generality, but sometimes the specific is intended and not the general. So how can this person distinguish a general text whose generality is not intended but whose specificity is intended, unless he has a general culture? And I recall on this occasion an example, and the examples are many and very many, but perhaps only one example comes to mind, one I recently studied and took as a lesson on this occasion. I say, have you looked at the book about seeking help from disbelievers? This is a new book.
Al-Halabi : The one written by Hassan.
The Shaykh : Who is this Hassan?
Al-Halabi : It is the same Shaykh, our Shaykh, who called you, who was with Shu'ayb.
The Shaykh : This topic is a good research to a large extent. The topic of seeking help from disbelievers, which happened in Saudi Arabia, was actually comprehensively covered.
Al-Halabi : In this issue or in the whole book?
The Shaykh : No, no, in this issue.
Al-Halabi : You are speaking now about the issue.
The Shaykh : I say that this specific issue was spoken about well, but the example I want to mention now is what came before this issue. He addressed the topic of jihad and its virtue, and that the scholars say jihad is of two types.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.