What is the meaning of the statement of Allah the Exalted: (It destroys everything by the command of its Lord)? And is the argument for generality based on the word (all) in it correct?

Al-Halabi : To make the research comprehensive, so that it is, as they say, inclusive and exclusive, there are two points that are also frequently mentioned in this chapter. The first point is the issue of the generality found in the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . Some people use another piece of evidence to refute this generality, which is the statement of Allah the Exalted describing the wind: . They say that it did not destroy everything, which indicates that it is not absolute generality, but rather a generality that is specified. This is the first point.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : The second point, which is the last thing we benefited from you and which you always repeat and mention, is a truth, and praise be to Allah. It is the issue of the general evidence, and the placement of a general evidence that the practice of the Salaf has not been carried out upon. Previous discussion in the fatwa or answer mentioned your statement: "That the establishment of a legal evidence for an occurring action indicates its prescription." This needs further clarification, if possible, and Allah knows best.

The Shaykh : Regarding your last statement, I think what we mentioned contains goodness and blessing.
Al-Halabi : The issue of the action of the Salaf, O Shaykh, the action of the Salaf upon the general evidence, because the people of innovation, O Shaykh, most of their arguments are based on generalities that the practice of the Salaf has not been carried out upon. Is this what is intended, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : My mind went to something other than what I clarified last. As for the generality and the verse you mentioned, that it does not mean absolute generality, it is possible to say that some general texts are from the general text where the specific is intended. As for the wind, without a doubt the earth remained, but it destroys everything that is before people, for example, from tents and houses, and so on. But first, when a claimant claims in a general legal text that it is a specified generality, it is known to all scholars of usul al-fiqh that it is not permissible to make such a claim unless the specifying evidence is brought. And let us now give an example, which I was mentioning regarding the word I just uttered about his saying (peace be upon him): . The innovators oppose this Prophetic universal statement by saying: No, not every innovation is misguidance. And we say, and this is what we benefited from the clarifications of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) repeated this universal statement on many and very many occasions, in his sermons. And what was the case, it is not correct that it be from the general that is specified, because the repetition of the phrase with this generality, without placing beside it a restriction that protects people from falling into misunderstanding of this text, that it is general, and the Wise Lawgiver means that it is not general, so he must come, at least sometimes, with a restriction that restricts this general text. But the reality is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not have in all his sermons, and in all his openings of his words, except this general text . So this generality is impossible to claim that it is general and specified, meaning the repetition of the Messenger (peace be upon him) of this phrase, always and forever, without placing beside it, even sometimes, what restricts it. This is a practical proof from the Messenger (peace be upon him) that he wants to establish in the minds of the listeners of this phrase that it is in its generality and absolute comprehensiveness with no restriction. And I used to give and bring closer this generality that has no specificity, by the example of his saying (peace be upon him): . So it is not correct for any of the Muslims to say: No, not every intoxicant is khamr, and not every khamr is forbidden. This comes like opposing Allah and the Messenger, and it falls under the previously mentioned verse to the end of the verse. So this universal statement in the second hadith, likewise the universal statement in the first hadith . So this is absolute generality that does not admit specification, like his saying: . As for the other issue you pointed to in your question, it is without a doubt not related to our previous research, and so I went to explain what the relation of the question is to the previous question, then it became clear to me that it means.