The Shaykh’s explanation that the obligation regarding the texts of the Shari'ah is to apply the absolute to the restricted and the general to the specific.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible for us to come to an absolute text and apply it in its absolute sense today, when 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 general sense when we know that it was not applied in its general sense. Adhering to 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 restricting themselves only to the Arabic style, without returning to observe how the Messenger (peace be upon him) interpreted them, whether by his saying, his doing, or his approval. Perhaps what will clarify for you this important and serious rule, in addition to the hadith we were discussing, is to bring you closer to this topic through the well-known verse: If we were to interpret this verse relying only on the Arabic style, we would understand from the saying of Allah the Exalted, , that it is 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. So, are this thief and that one both equal in that they fall under the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted, ? 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 warrant cutting off the hand of this thief.
So, how do we finally understand ? The "al" in "al" is for the definite (known) and not for comprehensiveness and inclusion. That is, , 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 full verse, and likewise 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 (peace be upon him).
Then Allah the Exalted said: . Do you see whether the hand in language is limited to the palm, or the forearm, or are all of these the hand? All of these are the hand. Do you see, if someone stole a quarter of a dinar or more, is it permissible for us to cut off his hand from here? As for the language, the answer is yes, because it is a hand, so wherever it is cut, the hand has been cut. But as for the Shari'ah, is it permissible to cut off the hand of the thief from here? The answer is no. Where did we take this from? From the practical, real 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 on which practice has not been conducted 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."