Not knowing a thing does not necessitate knowing its non-existence.

The Shaykh : Even so, they follow a contrary to the scientific rule which states that not knowing a thing does not necessitate knowing its non-existence. I agree with them in that we do not know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to trim his beard, but the difference is that they inferred the opposite of the rule from the lack of knowledge that he used to trim it, turning it into knowledge that he did not use to trim it. This is incorrect logic, contrary to the rule, which is that not knowing a thing does not necessitate knowing its non-existence. Do you understand?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, let us apply the rule. For example, hypothetically, I do not know at least that they combined the midday and afternoon prayers for rain. Do you understand? The meaning of this is that they did not combine them? Say no.

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Hypothetically, for the sake of the rule, take note. Do you understand?

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh : That is enough ... .

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : So we take a line back.

The questioner : Does that mean, does anything of the Sunnah get lost? Does this get lost?

The Shaykh : Do not stop in the middle of the road. We are walking in knowledge step by step, not jumping. Jumping never gives you the correct argument, does it?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : Why? Previously, when we spoke about the beard, our scholars (may Allah reward them with good) inferred from their lack of knowledge that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to trim it, that he did not use to trim it. We said this is contrary to the scientific rule, which is, may Allah have mercy on you, not knowing a thing does not necessitate knowing its non-existence. Are you not paying attention? Is this not the first rule? Did you understand it?

The questioner : Did you understand it?

The Shaykh : And the second is to digest it.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, why has this rule been deviated from?

The questioner : Allow me.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Because there, we took other evidence regarding the beard?

The Shaykh : That is not the issue here.

The questioner : I mean, if you stayed with this.

The Shaykh : Do not deviate from the topic. The issue is not specifically about the beard, but the issue is that they say the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not use to trim his beard!

The questioner : It is not established from him, yes.

The Shaykh : Do not say "it is not established."

Another questioner : But they say, "We do not know that he used to trim his beard!"

The Shaykh : Yes, do not say "it is not established," because your saying "it is not established" means it was narrated and not established. It was not that it was narrated and not established, but rather it was narrated that he trimmed it, and it was not established!

The questioner : It was not established, that is it.

The Shaykh : That is not it, may Allah guide you. It is the opposite.

The questioner : Excuse me, I meant this. Excuse me, please. I meant it was narrated and not established.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. Our topic is that they say it was not narrated. So you said with them that this rule relieves the researcher from what they call scientific pitfalls. Not knowing a thing does not necessitate knowing its non-existence. Our not knowing that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not trim his beard does not give us knowledge that he did not trim it. The answer to this aspect is that Allah knows best. We need to move on...

The questioner: Yes.