Since the term *'arous* is not used in custom for anything other than a woman, should it be restricted to her, given that this contradicts the language?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The term *'arous* is, of course, a linguistic term we know, but now the custom is that *al-'arous* refers to the woman, the bride, and is not applied to both the man and the woman in this custom. So, is it not possible for us to refrain from using this term for the man, since the custom has contradicted this?
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. The answer is no.
The questioner : This is... very good.
Al-Halabi : I mean, O our Shaykh, let our brother Abu Ahmad be clarified on this with a bit more detail.
Because he always says *'arous* and gets confused.
The questioner : What is the mistake?
The Shaykh : I mean, we have a principle that one should speak to people according to the capacity of their minds. So here, when Abu Abdullah applied to his neighbor, who is the *'arous* in the general custom because his wife is the *'arous*, the term *'arous*, no one understood from it anything other than what he meant, namely the husband of the bride. Is that clear?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But if a person outside said, "The *'arous* has arrived," what would they understand?
The questioner : That the *'arous* is a woman.
The Shaykh : Yes, so we do not use this word. When the word is placed in its appropriate place, and this is what is obligatory, I am as certain as certainty itself that one, two, three, or more of our brothers present here were previously unaware of this linguistic reality. But when this linguistic reality was used, Zayd, Bakr, and Amr became, what Allah wills, Muhammad, Ahmad, and Abu Ahmad, participating in knowing what? This language that had been neglected. So, it is necessary to be specific. Perhaps Abu Ahmad understood from the specification, but not in the way Abu al-Harith did.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you with good, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, is this the first question?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. The answer is no.
The questioner : This is... very good.
Al-Halabi : I mean, O our Shaykh, let our brother Abu Ahmad be clarified on this with a bit more detail.
Because he always says *'arous* and gets confused.
The questioner : What is the mistake?
The Shaykh : I mean, we have a principle that one should speak to people according to the capacity of their minds. So here, when Abu Abdullah applied to his neighbor, who is the *'arous* in the general custom because his wife is the *'arous*, the term *'arous*, no one understood from it anything other than what he meant, namely the husband of the bride. Is that clear?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But if a person outside said, "The *'arous* has arrived," what would they understand?
The questioner : That the *'arous* is a woman.
The Shaykh : Yes, so we do not use this word. When the word is placed in its appropriate place, and this is what is obligatory, I am as certain as certainty itself that one, two, three, or more of our brothers present here were previously unaware of this linguistic reality. But when this linguistic reality was used, Zayd, Bakr, and Amr became, what Allah wills, Muhammad, Ahmad, and Abu Ahmad, participating in knowing what? This language that had been neglected. So, it is necessary to be specific. Perhaps Abu Ahmad understood from the specification, but not in the way Abu al-Harith did.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you with good, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, is this the first question?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.