Continuation of the question from the previous tape.

The questioner : What I understood is that ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) is permissible even in the presence of an explicit text. In this case, ijtihad has become permissible and possible even with the existence of the text...?

The Shaykh : You forgot something I brought as a condition when I preceded you with this statement. You forgot it, and I do not say you neglected it; ... We said, "O Professor, for an urgent reason that did not exist in the era of the text's existence." Therefore, finally, I brought you the hadith . Do you know how there is no cutting off in a raid, which contradicts the cutting off in a quarter of a dinar or more? It does not contradict, but rather it gives you a condition for the general ruling. This condition allows you to understand the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and expand upon it. That is, a question will come to you: "Why is there no cutting off in a raid?" Meaning, is this text rational in meaning or devotional?

The questioner : A matter whose meaning is rational.

The Shaykh : If it is rational in meaning, you expand upon it. Who expands upon it? ... The statement you quoted from me, and not the scholars; so, has the matter become clear to you, Abu Yahya?

The questioner : It has become clear to me, and I do not hide anything from you in my heart.

The Shaykh : Bring it.

The questioner : Because here a person might come...

The Shaykh : What is the description of this person?

The questioner : From the general public, anyone.

The Shaykh : This is what you have concluded, and this is what we will not conclude, even if we told you...

The questioner : Let us take the example of Mustafa al-Zarqa.

The Shaykh : This man claims knowledge, so we cannot conclude from you. Correct your phrasing to put yourself at ease. What is the description of this person? First, you generalized and said, "A person might come to us, anyone." Your problem is that you have tied your fate to him; therefore, here it remains...

The questioner : I want to understand and reach the truth.

The Shaykh : Yes, but reaching the truth requires patience, right?

The questioner : There is a man known in society as a scholar, so you citedThe Shaykh : Mustafa al-Zarqa. This man is surrounded by people who consider him a scholar. Now, the times have changed, for example, in insurance. If insurance is permissible and recommended for him, and so on, should this contradictory fatwa (scholarly legal ruling) be measured against other fatwas, or as Shaltut issued?The Shaykh : Shaltut is considered a symbol and one of the landmarks of al-Azhar. He issued very strange fatwas. This might be taken to mean that this man issued fatwas as a result of a change in circumstances compared to what was the case previously. If this is what he brought... This is what is in my heart, meaning it is not an entry point for making things permissible from anyone and everyone... There is no limit because it opens the door.

The Shaykh : No, but you are responsible; because we asked you, "Who is this person?" You said, "Anyone." You are rushing. It is clear from your words and your rush that you want to ask, and these words come out of you... We, O Professor, if this question originates from you, the answer is very easy; but if it originates from Mustafa al-Zarqa and his like, we do not discuss this detail with him. Otherwise, we are now telling you: if Mustafa al-Zarqa is following the line we mention, we have two positions. It is not permissible to contradict the text unless one of the things occurs... that obliges the scholar to issue a fatwa suspending the text. So, we have two positions, right?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : If Mustafa al-Zarqa and others agree with us in this... As we told you exactly, what do I say about the permissibility of shaking hands, which he cited as an example? We withdraw this example and bring the examples he brought. What are they, until we suspend the forbidden text for this thing he made permissible? You say that we cannot measure the things they made permissible against the like of 'Umar's action. I know that Mustafa al-Zarqa's principles are not correct, ever since we were in Damascus. He considers that when 'Umar ibn al-Khattab suspended the share of the "mu'allafat qulubuhum" (those whose hearts are to be reconciled), the channel for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, he says that by this, 'Umar nullified the text. He nullified the text by his ijtihad. We here used to deny this expression and this action from him. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab did not nullify the text nor suspend it, but what he did was understand the "mu'allafat qulubuhum," the channel that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) established to reconcile their hearts. In the time of 'Umar, Islam, due to its spread, sometimes by force and sometimes by da'wah (calling others to Islam)... did not need to reconcile the hearts of Muslims. This matter is exactly like the matter of divorce. He saw that now, in the strength and power of Islam, there was no longer a need to reconcile the disbelievers and give them from the wealth of Muslims.

The questioner : No one anymore fits the description.

The Shaykh : Yes; so this is not a nullification of the text, such that we take this incident of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab as a cause for its like in nullifying texts that are like mountains in existence and indication. So, if we come and say that the texts for which the circumstances that existed in that time are the same as the circumstances existing now, it is not permissible to change them. Riba (usury or interest) was forbidden by Allah in the time of the Messenger, while before that it was tacitly permissible; because there was no legislation regarding its prohibition. Now, riba is as it was in the time of the Messenger's prohibition of it. So, what has newly occurred for us to permit a certain percentage of it? There is nothing in the matter.

The questioner : The issues of riba are forbidden and will remain forbidden forever; so do we imagine that...?

The Shaykh : No, O Professor, we do not differ on this. But you forgot that we told you earlier that there is a text for which circumstances have not come that contradict the circumstances that brought the text. We left that. What remains is to take a text that had circumstances, and now its circumstances are different from those circumstances. So, take the second side, and I will give you an example now. What has newly occurred now for us to permit riba?

The questioner : What has newly occurred?

The Shaykh : Nothing has newly occurred. So why do they permit riba?

The questioner : No, is no one defending them?

The Shaykh : My brother, Mustafa al-Zarqa is of this kind, my brother. And why, if you cited Mustafa al-Zarqa as an example, what did Mustafa al-Zarqa equate?

The questioner : I am speaking about insurance, I am not speaking about riba.

The Shaykh : We did not differ. I am asking you now: what did Mustafa al-Zarqa equate? Did he rely on the principle we brought now?

The questioner : I do not know. I am not discussing whether he relied on a principle regarding riba...

Another questioner : That is in the interest of the people...

The questioner : I am not discussing this, but let us...

The Shaykh : If so, why did you bring up Mustafa al-Zarqa?

The questioner : Regarding insurance, the issue of insurance is permitted by Mustafa al-Zarqa.

The Shaykh : And why did you bring up Mustafa al-Zarqa...?

The questioner : Considering that he is a man pointed to with the finger...

The Shaykh : Allow me, allow me. What is the connection of Mustafa al-Zarqa to the topic we were discussing previously?

The questioner : That this is a man the general public believes to be a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings).

The Shaykh : My brother, I understood this, but did he say that we are suspending this text now, as 'Umar and 'Uthman did, because something new occurred in it that was not in that time?

The questioner : I did not attribute this kind of thing to himself...

The Shaykh : Who is not related to our research, or those who contradict the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) are many. But what is the connection of Mustafa al-Zarqa to our topic? Because you, without offense, and I forget a lot, unfortunately.

The questioner : You do not forget; I am the one who forgets.

The Shaykh : No, excuse me, this is the truth, but I am remembering now that you started your speech saying that any person who comes like this, where did we reach...? To Mustafa al-Zarqa.

The questioner : And Shaltut.

The Shaykh : And Shaltut, may Allah reward you with good. This is a testimony you brought. Allow me, my lord. If the topic of al-Zarqa is here and Shaltut, you mentioned him because he is related to our topic. And if it finally becomes clear, especially regarding al-Zarqa and Shaltut, we will see what your opinion is of him. Al-Zarqa has no connection to this topic; because al-Zarqa is not exploiting our words and saying, "You say such and such." Did we do what 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and 'Uthman ibn al-Affan did, suspending the text in the presence of an urgent matter that arose around the text, which was not present in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Therefore, I was surprised by your mention of Mustafa al-Zarqa on this occasion, and it has now become clear that there is no occasion to mention Mustafa al-Zarqa. We return to Shaltut, who is like him. If he is like him, we have been satisfied.

The questioner : No, in fact, you have narrowed and restricted the matter. We only mention names for proof... meaning Mustafa al-Zarqa has many fatwas...

The Shaykh : My brother, I know, I know.

Another questioner: That is, the method of analogical reasoning. If the case follows the same method by which we began... we restricted the matter in that it was in a specific situation; now the situation differs due to a specific assumption. This restriction imposes on us that we do not adhere to a specific ruling in this situation and with this restriction... As for those, if they say their analogy is based on something else and by another method, then it becomes a different subject.

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner: Because by the method of this principle, many people, such as so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, are able to exercise independent legal reasoning. They tell you, "This is the case in which we exercised independent legal reasoning by the method of this principle." Let them, if they did not exercise independent legal reasoning by this method, then it becomes a second subject.