Needs indexing

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you what has come before of your sin and what has come after. That is what they say... your need is fulfilled... Do not exhaust yourself. This is the goal we aim for in our life here, in our obedience to our Lord, and in our following of the Sunnah of our Prophet: that we attain the forgiveness of our Lord. And Allah has forgiven you what has come before of your sin and what has come after. Why this exhaustion? He said: Those people were heedless of this matter. They said, "It is his right, peace be upon him, to marry women, and that he does not stand in night prayer at all, nor fast the whole year, because he has achieved the purpose." This is a statement that touches the station of prophethood and messengership, had they known. So they agreed among themselves after they had uttered this erroneous word, saying, "This is the Messenger of Allah, and Allah has forgiven him what has come before of his sin and what has come after. As for me, one of them, I say of myself: I stand in night prayer and do not sleep." The second said, "I fast the whole year and do not break the fast." The third said, "I do not marry women at all." Who says that fasting is evil, and night prayer is evil, and not marrying women is evil? Especially for the sake of devoting oneself to the worship of Allah. Reason does not say it is evil, but the Shari'ah shows us that it is evil. And here is the point: It is not permissible for a Muslim to stand in night prayer and not sleep, because it harms himself. This is what happened to Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As, where his father married him to a young woman from Quraysh while he was a young man in the prime of his life, fifteen years old. And among the wonders of things, there were fifteen years between him and his father, meaning his father married early, so he wanted to marry his son early. And this is good. I wish the fathers of this time would follow this good practice, not marrying their sons until after thirty and more, so they can study, get their high school diploma, university degree, doctorate, and so on. And the city would be ruined—(the Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, laughed). The point is, then he married him a few days later, as is natural. He entered upon his mother-in-law and asked her about her condition with her husband. She said, "He has not yet touched our bed." He has not yet touched our bed, meaning it was as if there was no marriage. Without a doubt, the father here would be extremely angry and would complain to the Messenger, peace be upon him... "We married our son to protect him, for such and such reasons, and so on." And he was still in his worship, and he was not asking about his wife. What was his worship? The Messenger came to him, or he met him, as the narration goes. He said to him: He said to him, "That was the case, O Messenger of Allah." If he harmed her, with what? With fasting and prayer, and what else?

The questioner : Standing in night prayer

The Shaykh : And standing in night prayer. What did he, peace be upon him, say to him? He said: Who visits you? In another hadith, it happened between Salman and Ibn Darda: He said, "O Messenger of Allah, I am a young man with strength, and I am able to do more than that." When did he say this? After he had established a method for him that he would read double. He was reading a complete recitation of the Qur'an every night. So what is one who completes the Qur'an every night doing for women? And what is one who fasts the whole year doing for women? So he said to him, "Read the Qur'an as the last thing, once a month. Sorry, read the Qur'an in three nights. Whoever reads the Qur'an in less than three nights does not understand it." As for fasting, he had said to him, "Fast three days of every month, because one good deed is ten times its like... Fast three days as if you fasted a month." He used to say, "O Messenger of Allah, I am a young man with strength, and I am able to do more than that." He said to him: The Messenger, peace be upon him, ascended to the highest companion, and Abdullah ibn Amr lived a long, blessed life thereafter. He grew old and became elderly, and he was persistent in the method of the Messenger that he established for him: not fasting the whole year, nor a complete recitation of the Qur'an every night, but a complete recitation of the Qur'an in three days, and fasting one day and breaking the fast the next. This is the most spacious thing he gave him. When he reached that age, he used to say, "I wish I had accepted the dispensation of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." The point is: It is not permissible to harm yourself, even with good. I want you to understand this. Just as it is not permissible to harm another, even with good. This story... is an example of the two ends of the hadith: harm to the self and harm to another. Without a doubt, the woman was harmed here.

The questioner : What if it is with smoking?

The Shaykh : Well done, well done. And this has a second hadith.
The point, the point, may Allah reward you. The jurists, based on his saying, peace be upon him, when he heard a voice in the mosque reciting the Qur'an, he lifted the curtain and said: This is a correct addition, even if it is not known in many books of hadith. With what? With raising the voice in recitation. As if he is saying to them, "Lower your voices in recitation. Each of you is whispering to his Lord. What is the benefit of raising the voice?" The jurists built on this the following image, which is very wonderful. They said, "If there is a man sleeping in the mosque and a man wants to read the Qur'an, it is not permissible for him to raise his voice in reciting the Qur'an. Why? Because he annoys the sleeper. So by raising his voice in the Qur'an, he is not sinful, nor is he an innovator, but it is permissible. It is permissible to raise your voice in the Qur'an, especially if a person fears boredom if he reads secretly, and some people feel this. But if there is a person sleeping in the mosque, it is not permissible to raise your voice in the Qur'an. If we know these legal facts, how is it permissible to say that it is permissible for a living person to donate one of his kidneys to another, when there may be harm to him, either in the near term or in the long term? And this statement is supported by remembering a fact that every believer believes in. Our Lord said in the Qur'an: That is, through His knowledge, from His knowledge and from His ignorance, from His ignorance. Because not everyone knows this fact, but the Muslim benefits from knowledge from the book of his Lord and from the hadith of his Prophet: Do you see that when our Lord created for man two kidneys, and two hands, and two legs, did He do it in vain? I do not see any difference at all between a person who volunteers one of his kidneys and a person who volunteers one of his hands or legs. There is no difference at all between this and that, absolutely. Yes?

The questioner : Donating kidneys is more and more dangerous

The Shaykh : More dangerous. Well done. This is a witness from among its people. I thought I would wait for his arrival. He...

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good

The questioner : And you likewise

The Shaykh : So, I am saying this, and we mention it to clarify the reality and as a lesson for those who take heed. I am now speaking to you with this speech, and in the opinion of some doctors—I do not know if they are right or wrong—I am living before you now with only one kidney, because the right kidney is non-functional. If I had been one of those who are arrogant with such a fatwa and had donated this kidney, and the other had become non-functional, I would have been in the world of the dead without a doubt. Therefore, it is a grave error to say that it is permissible to donate one of the kidneys. This is regarding the living person, because he is in need of it. Otherwise, as we said, and these are examples of the hands and legs, which are tangible examples. And as you heard, this is a hidden, internal matter. I believe that if a hand were cut off, there would be no danger to the person whose hand was cut, as evidenced by the fact that the Shari'ah came with the cutting of the hand, and how many people committed the sin that necessitates the cutting of the hand, and perhaps the leg as well, and did they not live? But if the second kidney is exposed to danger, it is possible that he is exposed to death. And therefore, as you heard, it is more dangerous to donate one of the kidneys. This is regarding the living person. As for the dead person, many people who issue fatwas permitting the opening of the dead person's chest and extracting one of the kidneys for the benefit of the living person overlook or neglect this. Here, a word comes to mind, attributed to Abu al-'Ala al-Ma'arri, and although he is a man whose words are not cited as evidence, the word is true whether it comes from one who is not qualified or from one who is qualified. When he saw a sick man and they described to him the meat of a kid goat or a small sheep, he said "They have underestimated you and described to you a kid goat; why did they not describe to you a lion cub?" (The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, laughed). So they have taken advantage of the dead and ruled on benefiting from one of his kidneys, but the Shari'ah says it is not permissible to mutilate, even the disbelievers. This is part of the etiquette of Islam, so what about mutilating Muslims? And he (peace and blessings be upon him) said So, cut open his belly and his nerves, and I do not know what the doctor passes through on his way—I know more than he does—to reach this kidney. This is mutilation of this dead person. And unfortunately, when they issue this fatwa, they do not distinguish between the Muslim and the disbeliever. And our Lord says If they intended, and if such a fatwa is necessary to achieve the benefit, they claim the benefit of the living person at the expense of the dead person. At the very least, they should restrict it to the disbeliever, because when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said and described him as a believer, he said it is like breaking him while he is alive. So I see that this approach rises above the principle that the end does not justify the means in Islam, unlike the disbelievers who say, either by their state or by their words, and the state is more eloquent than the words in many circumstances. These disbelievers say the end justifies the means. And therefore, as you see in this life, in this era and others, they consider permissible what no religion after Islam permits, with all its flaws and defects. Why? Because the end justifies the means. And we do not need to hear the disbelievers state explicitly what their state speaks, that the end justifies the means. We do not hope to hear such a word from these disbelievers, because as you know, they are people of politics, and therefore they act contrary to what they express and say. But we want all our Muslim brothers, whether they are jurists or not, scholars or not, not to imitate the disbelievers in their systems, in their methodologies, in their path of conduct, in their lives, and among that is that the end justifies the means. Therefore, you find that when they say, "My brother, this dead person is going to die, so let us save the living person at the expense of one of his kidneys," the end justifies the means. No, this is his property, and it is not permissible for him to dispose of it. Here a question arises and the answer is known, but from what has preceded, there is a strengthening of the position: even if the dead person wrote a bequest that he permits the benefit from a kidney or two kidneys, or an eye, or ... or the like, we say that this bequest is invalid, because this dead person has no right to dispose of his body after his death. He has transitioned from this life to the barzakh life, so he will transition with all his flaws and defects, and he has no right to dispose of his body, unlike what was permissible for him to dispose of in his life.

The questioner : A question on the topic
Al-Halabi: The same topic, Shaykh
Another questioner: Donating blood, is that not so?

The Shaykh : It is not so, because in this blood there is nothing of mutilation. But the previous condition applies, in the sense that I tell you about myself, and perhaps there is a lesson in that. Donating blood should be from a person who has excess blood and has strength and vitality such that he compensates for it with the food and drink he eats. It is not a permissible donation of blood, as I said earlier, except with the opinion of a doctor supervising the health of this donor. Otherwise, he may fall into the same danger or something similar to the previous danger. You donate your blood and your health declines. Do you understand how? And the example, in my opinion, is also the example. I, for two years or more, felt some dizziness and headache, and this is from the favor of my Lord, I do not know it except very rarely. It was said to me that I must check my blood count. So I went to the blood bank, as they call it, and they pricked me a few times here from the tip of the finger and took drops of blood and tested them, etc. The answer was that I do not know the medical term, your blood degree or strength is twenty-one, while it must be fourteen or fifteen.
Another questioner: Eighteen at most.

The Shaykh : At most, meaning fifteen to eighteen. So they said we must take a liter of blood from you. And indeed, they took a liter of blood from me, and indeed I felt that this dizziness went away. But afterwards, I relapsed. I do not blame those doctors, but I say that perhaps the setback I am still complaining about is that my white blood cells are deficient, and they mention a huge number there, and no matter how much I treated myself and took medicines, etc., if they say there is progress, it is a negligible progress. I fear most of all that this deficiency is the result of that extraction. But that extraction is a philosophy of mine; the doctors may accept it or may not. That extraction does not take only the red blood cells; everything in it, so it is possible that a number of white blood cells that I needed were extracted. Allah knows best. And until now, I am complaining about this deficiency. I ask Allah, our Lord, to guide us to meet with our brothers and maintain the prayer in congregation to the extent of our ability. So if donating blood is within these limits and conditions, I have no objection to it, because it is not included in the mutilation that is prohibited, first of all. And secondly, it falls under the generality of his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: This is with the previous condition. Is the answer clear? Good.
Another questioner: ...

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : One person died before he died, and another person has a heart disease. They said the best thing is that since we can benefit from the heart, even if it is to keep this person alive, what is your opinion on this?

The Shaykh : The answer has already been given.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, it is not permissible to cut open the belly of a deceased person, especially a Muslim deceased person, because it constitutes mutilation, and because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: We mentioned this regarding the kidney because the question was asked. Anything that involves mutilating a deceased person is absolutely not permissible. For example, if a person dies and is buried in the grave, and his family comes claiming that he was betrayed and killed by strangulation, and we want to know the perpetrator, the forensic doctor claims—this forensic doctor claims to be a forensic doctor. These are the names used today; they call things by names other than their true names: forensic doctor, Islamic bank, Islamic library, Islamic office, and so on—(the Shaykh laughed, may Allah have mercy on him)—and Islamic insurance, and so on. ... The forensic doctor says that the deceased's body must be exhumed from the grave and his belly cut open to determine the cause of death. This is not permissible. His affair is finished, and he has moved from the world of this life to the world of the barzakh (the interval between death and resurrection). What do you imagine about this person when he is placed in the grave? Imagine this reality with me, for it is a reality, not an illusion, and few people think about it. When this deceased person is placed in the grave and given the prescribed or the innovated talaqin (instructions for the grave), and the latter is what mostly happens today, unfortunately, if they come to you and ask, "Who is your Lord? Who is your Prophet? What is your religion?" and so on, and you answer thus and so, and indeed the two angels, Munkar and Nakir, come to him and question him, and he either succeeds or fails. As they say in our region in Sham, "and that's that". Then the forensic doctor comes and says, "Expose the deceased." They expose the deceased, take him to the autopsy room, dissect him, and the forensic doctor rules on something that does not concern us, and he is returned to his grave. Will the two angels come to him and question him? Of course not. The two angels will not come to him and question him. Why? Because when he entered the world of the barzakh, the questioning came to him, and the questioning will not be repeated to him. Therefore, this is an encroachment on this deceased person after he has moved from the world of this life to the world of the barzakh, which is the world between the two worlds: the world of this life and the world of the Hereafter. Therefore, you must be aware that this is a rule that covers everything that requires cutting open the belly of the deceased and mutilating him, whether it is a kidney, a heart, or I do not know what other things, nerves, the brain, or whatever it is. This is not permissible.
Another questioner: As for donation, this is within our ownership and our will...

The Shaykh : There is no harm and no reciprocating harm. May Allah reward you.

The questioner : As for removing the deceased... it is a legal, official matter that the deceased's family cannot refuse...
Another questioner: A second issue.
Another questioner: He cannot refuse it.

The Shaykh : This is a second discussion. In other words, if we are currently striving, each according to his capacity, ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and opinion, to establish the Islamic society and implement Islamic governance, then when we speak these words, we know that much of it goes to waste. Why? Because we do not have the power to enforce it; it is in the hands of the state. But when we speak, it is to raise the awareness of the ummah (the Muslim community) in case the Islamic state truly rises. Will this forensic doctor exist in the day of the established Islamic state? The answer is no. Therefore, such a question is not directed at us. Yes.
Al-Halabi: Our Shaykh, there is a question related to the same issue.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Al-Halabi: But another question arises from this. The example given for donation is donating a hand or a leg. Is this closer to medicine? Is it medically possible to benefit from a hand or a leg if it is cut off?

The Shaykh : The doctors should be asked about this.
Al-Halabi: Well, in light of this, our Shaykh, some magazines raised the issue: if the hand of a thief is cut off, is he allowed to take it to reattach it?

The Shaykh : He is not allowed to do so. This is our answer. Cutting off the hand of a thief by the ruling of the wise Shari'ah was not in vain, but for a profound wisdom. It is that this person, in any gathering he sits in, will be pointed to with the finger or the eye, saying, "This is a thief." So he is blamed in his heart, which deters him from committing his act again. If his cut-off hand is returned to him and he becomes as if he had not stolen, the purpose of this legal execution or this hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishment) is not achieved. Therefore, this logic comes from those disbelievers who have no hudud. But since we have hudud for a prescribed purpose, it is not appropriate to compare Zayd to Bakr. Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.
Another questioner: Our honorable Shaykh, from animals they take...

The Shaykh : By Allah, if it is a domestic animal, and not like a pig or a dog, for example, then in principle, it can be said to be permissible, but on the condition that we look at the nature of the work. Is it carrion, or is it alive, or what? It requires some thought, and I am not there now. Yes.
Al-Halabi: The questioner asks: A pregnant woman died before giving birth, and the fetus is alive and fully formed. Is it permissible to cut open her belly to extract the fetus?

The Shaykh : It is obligatory.
Al-Halabi: It is obligatory.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
Al-Halabi: Yes.

The Shaykh : As long as it is alive. But if it is not, it is not permissible.
Al-Halabi: The questioner asks: Is the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) application and practice of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays prior to what was reported from him of his saying, "The best fasting is the fasting of Dawud," on the grounds that the Prophet does not leave the best?

The Shaykh : No, this is weak talk. It may be that the best for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is to leave the worship altogether, in order to clarify the Shari'ah.
Al-Halabi: Yes.

The Shaykh : And he has the same reward as the one who performed that worship. This reminds me of something I said on the occasion of my commentary on those who did not understand his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying correctly, which is: This hadith has been difficult for many people, both in the past and in the present. We have no connection with the ancients because we cannot exchange words with them, but we can exchange words with some of the living, and not with all of the living.
Another questioner: Peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and Allah's mercy and blessings.
We can exchange words about this hadith with some of the living, and not with all of the living, because some of the other living are like the dead. Therefore, I do not mean those, but I mean the first group. So we say, or I may have said to some of these people when they found the generality of this hadith difficult, that they applied other hadiths to it that clarify the virtue of fasting on Monday and on...