Do we say that the one who does not remember Allah when having intercourse with his wife is forbidden from having intercourse with her?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : For example, remembering Allah the Exalted when approaching a woman: if he does not remember Allah, then Satan participates in his intercourse.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : Do we say that the one who leaves off the remembrance of Allah is forbidden from approaching his wife?
The Shaykh : What does the hadith say?
The questioner : I recall that it says: if one of you approaches his family, let him mention the name of Allah, or something like that, then if a child is destined to be born, Satan will not harm it.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : And it does not indicate, meaning, in the hadith as I recall, an explicit command.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The phrase of explanation: So, has not the one who does not respond to this legal ruling opened the way for Satan? Tell me, no or yes.
The questioner : And on the other hand,
The Shaykh : No, I did not say that to you. I am waiting for you to tell me, no or yes, so that we can build upon no or yes.
The questioner : Meaning, if he leaves off the mention of the name, then by that he has opened the way for Satan to cause harm.
The Shaykh : Is this action permissible in the Shari'ah?
The questioner : It does not appear to me that opening the way for Satan in this manner makes the matter forbidden.
The Shaykh : Why? Do you not know that Satan is a clear enemy to man?
The questioner : Because I say,
The Shaykh : No, I am not asking you, do you not know? Say yes.
The questioner : Yes, yes. Satan causes harm, yes, yes, he corrupts it.
The Shaykh : So how do you open the way for your clear enemy to harm you and harm you in your offspring and descendants? May Allah reward you, this is...
The questioner : So the prohibition,
The Shaykh : What... without a doubt.
The questioner : That if he does not mention the name of Allah,
The Shaykh : We do not doubt that. This is something else. I said in the hadith, which is the third hadith, when he saw the man drinking while standing, he said to him: I imagine that when the man heard these words from him (peace and blessings be upon him), he was startled and said, "No, O Messenger of Allah." So I imagine it was like that. Now, what would be his position when he hears his Prophet say to him: Here the same previous question arises, which the wise Lawgiver made a legal cause to prevent the harm of the accursed Satan to the offspring of the one who has intercourse with his family by mentioning the name and seeking refuge in Allah.
The questioner : The obligation,
The Shaykh : Ah? The same words said there are also said here: is it permissible for a Muslim to open the way for his enemy, Satan, to participate in his food and drink? And this leads us to: what do you say about the mention of the name over food? Is it obligatory or recommended? I think you will follow your opinion and say recommended, recommended, recommended all the time.
The questioner : No, according to the wording. If a statement comes that implies obligation, we say it is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : And if a statement comes that does not imply obligation,
The Shaykh : Very beautiful words. So, is it permissible for a Muslim to open the way for Satan to participate in his food? You will say no, I think out of good assumption.
The questioner : If it is in his hand, it is not permissible. His hand means, if he is able to prevent it, let him prevent it.
The Shaykh : He is able and says, "In the name of Allah."
The questioner : The mention of the name,
The Shaykh: Huh?
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : He is able,
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So the question returns: is it permissible for him to open the way for Satan to participate in his food?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible to open the way for Satan to participate in his drink?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : To participate in his offspring? It is not permissible.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The matter is finished. Finally, he says to him: did he do something permissible? Something permissible.
The questioner : If we did not look at the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), we would say this. But since the Prophet did it, we do not attribute it to prohibition.
The Shaykh : Did the Messenger, may Allah reward you, as we said earlier, have a possibility among the possibilities, and no one can ever refute one of these possibilities with legal evidence? So we said earlier, when the Lawgiver forbids something, that thing was permissible before, do you not agree with me on this?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So, in the text of the prohibition itself, there is an explicit indication of one thing and an implicit indication of another. The explicit indication is the prohibition, and the implicit one is that the forbidden thing was previously permissible.
The questioner : But its meaning is that we say there is abrogation here.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah.
The questioner : Because, because he did...
The Shaykh : Allow me, and is there any doubt that every prohibition includes the abrogation of what was permissible? Is there any doubt in that?
The questioner : If it comes in the evidence of abrogation, we say so.
The Shaykh : No, no, I say standing with the prohibition, standing with the prohibition.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, is there any doubt that any text that includes a prohibition of something, that thing was previously permissible and then became forbidden? These are two concomitant matters that cannot be separated. He forbade intoxicants, they were permissible. He forbade wearing silk, it was permissible. He forbade wearing gold, it was permissible. The Messenger wore gold, wore gold, then threw it away, and so on. So, since the permissibility was lifted by the prohibition, there is no longer any conception of contradiction here. There is no contradiction.
The questioner : It is a possibility, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : So the previous research returns. This possibility is not permissible to apply to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) which directs the Shari'ah for the general public of Muslims. Meaning, you know that there are many specific matters for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The questioner : ... I need evidence.
The Shaykh : Let us, let us bring the famous example that he married more than four. Now, this is a specific matter for him, without a doubt.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not for us here to remove and to argue with the verse you mentioned earlier:[Al-Ahzab 33:21]
The questioner :
The Shaykh : Why? Because the prohibition of this came.
The questioner : In the specification of the Prophet, specification.
The Shaykh : Does your saying contradict my saying? I said, why do we not remove with the verse you removed with earlier:[Al-Ahzab 33:21] Why do we say we have a model in the Messenger of Allah, so we marry the fifth and sixth, and so on? Why do we not say?
The questioner: Because
The Shaykh : I said, I said, I said that the prohibition came that we marry more than four.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is this answer correct or not?
The questioner : But it is incomplete.
The Shaykh : What? But I am not being held accountable. I do not find a place for "but" in the grammar.
The questioner : And that is because evidence of the specificity of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came.
The Shaykh : What is the evidence of the specificity, may Allah reward you? What is the evidence of the specificity? I presented the evidence to you earlier. I presented the evidence to you earlier that the Messenger forbade the thing he did. In other words, you say that the evidence of specificity is established. What is the evidence? I am presenting the evidence to you. Do you have another evidence?
The questioner : It does not come to my mind now, but is there
The Shaykh : Okay...
The questioner : ... the Prophet that he remains with nine?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Is there evidence
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : that the Prophet remains with nine women?
The Shaykh : This is a deviation, this is a deviation from the topic.
The questioner : I am asking now, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No problem, save this question of yours. This will be a backup, let us leave it aside. But does not this evidence we presented suffice to prove the specificity?
The questioner : By Allah, it does not appear to me that it suffices, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah. So what appeared to you if this does not appear to you, and it is like the sun in the fourth hour of the day? But I also think this is out of good assumption that you are not recalling the prohibition. When a man who embraced Islam and had nine women under him, he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): Does this evidence not suffice to prove specificity? If this does not suffice,
The questioner : This, this is what
The Shaykh : So what is it that suffices?
The questioner : That makes us, O Shaykh, forbid a person from increasing more than four, or not?
The Shaykh : This does not contradict what I said.
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : Do we say that the one who leaves off the remembrance of Allah is forbidden from approaching his wife?
The Shaykh : What does the hadith say?
The questioner : I recall that it says: if one of you approaches his family, let him mention the name of Allah, or something like that, then if a child is destined to be born, Satan will not harm it.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : And it does not indicate, meaning, in the hadith as I recall, an explicit command.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The phrase of explanation:
Satan will not harm it
لا يضره الشيطانThe questioner : And on the other hand,
The Shaykh : No, I did not say that to you. I am waiting for you to tell me, no or yes, so that we can build upon no or yes.
The questioner : Meaning, if he leaves off the mention of the name, then by that he has opened the way for Satan to cause harm.
The Shaykh : Is this action permissible in the Shari'ah?
The questioner : It does not appear to me that opening the way for Satan in this manner makes the matter forbidden.
The Shaykh : Why? Do you not know that Satan is a clear enemy to man?
The questioner : Because I say,
The Shaykh : No, I am not asking you, do you not know? Say yes.
The questioner : Yes, yes. Satan causes harm, yes, yes, he corrupts it.
The Shaykh : So how do you open the way for your clear enemy to harm you and harm you in your offspring and descendants? May Allah reward you, this is...
The questioner : So the prohibition,
The Shaykh : What... without a doubt.
The questioner : That if he does not mention the name of Allah,
The Shaykh : We do not doubt that. This is something else. I said in the hadith, which is the third hadith, when he saw the man drinking while standing, he said to him:
Do you like that the cat drinks with you?
أترضى أن يشرب معك الهر؟Satan, who is worse than him, has drunk with you
قد شرب معك من هو شر منه الشيطانThe questioner : The obligation,
The Shaykh : Ah? The same words said there are also said here: is it permissible for a Muslim to open the way for his enemy, Satan, to participate in his food and drink? And this leads us to: what do you say about the mention of the name over food? Is it obligatory or recommended? I think you will follow your opinion and say recommended, recommended, recommended all the time.
The questioner : No, according to the wording. If a statement comes that implies obligation, we say it is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Good.
The questioner : And if a statement comes that does not imply obligation,
The Shaykh : Very beautiful words. So, is it permissible for a Muslim to open the way for Satan to participate in his food? You will say no, I think out of good assumption.
The questioner : If it is in his hand, it is not permissible. His hand means, if he is able to prevent it, let him prevent it.
The Shaykh : He is able and says, "In the name of Allah."
The questioner : The mention of the name,
The Shaykh: Huh?
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : He is able,
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So the question returns: is it permissible for him to open the way for Satan to participate in his food?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Yes, is it permissible to open the way for Satan to participate in his drink?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : To participate in his offspring? It is not permissible.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : The matter is finished. Finally, he says to him: did he do something permissible? Something permissible.
The questioner : If we did not look at the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), we would say this. But since the Prophet did it, we do not attribute it to prohibition.
The Shaykh : Did the Messenger, may Allah reward you, as we said earlier, have a possibility among the possibilities, and no one can ever refute one of these possibilities with legal evidence? So we said earlier, when the Lawgiver forbids something, that thing was permissible before, do you not agree with me on this?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : So, in the text of the prohibition itself, there is an explicit indication of one thing and an implicit indication of another. The explicit indication is the prohibition, and the implicit one is that the forbidden thing was previously permissible.
The questioner : But its meaning is that we say there is abrogation here.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah.
The questioner : Because, because he did...
The Shaykh : Allow me, and is there any doubt that every prohibition includes the abrogation of what was permissible? Is there any doubt in that?
The questioner : If it comes in the evidence of abrogation, we say so.
The Shaykh : No, no, I say standing with the prohibition, standing with the prohibition.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, is there any doubt that any text that includes a prohibition of something, that thing was previously permissible and then became forbidden? These are two concomitant matters that cannot be separated. He forbade intoxicants, they were permissible. He forbade wearing silk, it was permissible. He forbade wearing gold, it was permissible. The Messenger wore gold, wore gold, then threw it away, and so on. So, since the permissibility was lifted by the prohibition, there is no longer any conception of contradiction here. There is no contradiction.
The questioner : It is a possibility, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : So the previous research returns. This possibility is not permissible to apply to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) which directs the Shari'ah for the general public of Muslims. Meaning, you know that there are many specific matters for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The questioner : ... I need evidence.
The Shaykh : Let us, let us bring the famous example that he married more than four. Now, this is a specific matter for him, without a doubt.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not for us here to remove and to argue with the verse you mentioned earlier:
There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌThe questioner :
And whatever the Messenger has given you, take it
وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُThe Shaykh : Why? Because the prohibition of this came.
The questioner : In the specification of the Prophet, specification.
The Shaykh : Does your saying contradict my saying? I said, why do we not remove with the verse you removed with earlier:
There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌThe questioner: Because
The Shaykh : I said, I said, I said that the prohibition came that we marry more than four.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is this answer correct or not?
The questioner : But it is incomplete.
The Shaykh : What? But I am not being held accountable. I do not find a place for "but" in the grammar.
The questioner : And that is because evidence of the specificity of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came.
The Shaykh : What is the evidence of the specificity, may Allah reward you? What is the evidence of the specificity? I presented the evidence to you earlier. I presented the evidence to you earlier that the Messenger forbade the thing he did. In other words, you say that the evidence of specificity is established. What is the evidence? I am presenting the evidence to you. Do you have another evidence?
The questioner : It does not come to my mind now, but is there
The Shaykh : Okay...
The questioner : ... the Prophet that he remains with nine?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Is there evidence
The Shaykh : Ah
The questioner : that the Prophet remains with nine women?
The Shaykh : This is a deviation, this is a deviation from the topic.
The questioner : I am asking now, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No problem, save this question of yours. This will be a backup, let us leave it aside. But does not this evidence we presented suffice to prove the specificity?
The questioner : By Allah, it does not appear to me that it suffices, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah. So what appeared to you if this does not appear to you, and it is like the sun in the fourth hour of the day? But I also think this is out of good assumption that you are not recalling the prohibition. When a man who embraced Islam and had nine women under him, he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him):
He retained four of them and divorced the rest.
أمسك أربعا منهن وطلق سائرهنThe questioner : This, this is what
The Shaykh : So what is it that suffices?
The questioner : That makes us, O Shaykh, forbid a person from increasing more than four, or not?
The Shaykh : This does not contradict what I said.
The questioner : Yes, exactly.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.