Did he speak about the issue of the abrogating and the abrogated?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : I raised earlier the rule of the abrogating and the abrogated. The scholars, as far as we know, say: "One does not resort to claiming abrogation unless reconciliation is impossible". Do you have a problem with this?
The questioner : And I add another condition, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : And the knowledge of the timeline?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. And the knowledge of the timeline is part of claiming abrogation. We say: one does not resort to abrogation!
The questioner : How?
The Shaykh : This is the opposite of what we say!
The questioner : How, O Shaykh?
The other questioner: The Shaykh's words are precise. That one does not resort to abrogation now means the Shaykh is denying abrogation?
The Shaykh : Ah.
The other questioner: You are now denying abrogation after knowing the timeline!
The Shaykh : Ah.
The other questioner: This is the opposite.
The Shaykh : ...
The questioner : What I understood from the Shaykh's words is that abrogation is not asserted except after the condition the Shaykh mentioned, which is the absence.
The Shaykh : Unless reconciliation is impossible.
The questioner : Yes, the impossibility of reconciliation. So I say, and another condition is added to it, which is also the knowledge of the timeline.
The Shaykh : This is wrong, my brother. May Allah guide you.
The questioner : Okay, how, O Shaykh? Correct me.
The Shaykh : This is said when a claimant asserts that this is abrogating. You say, with the condition of knowing the timeline. I say the opposite.
The questioner : What are we discussing, O Shaykh? The statement I made is: one does not resort to abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation!
The Shaykh : Yes, we are done, we are at rest. You are contradicting me on this!
The questioner : O Shaykh, I am adding another condition!
The Shaykh : My brother, this addition comes later!
The other questioner: In the proof now, there is only negation.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : This is how we need to work, my brother.
The questioner : O Shaykh, excuse me. My brother, the brother Ahmad Masilh, told me to speak about it.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : The brother Ahmad Masilh whispered to me, saying: think about it. So I want to ask what you understood from it, to see if I or someone else understood what I understood, or did not understand.
The Shaykh : No, we agreed that it is between you and me, and leave the people alone.
The students: Hehe.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The questioner : One does not resort to reconciliation to abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation in any way, and the knowledge of the timeline are two conditions for abrogation.
The Shaykh : This statement is wrong.
The questioner : Okay, O Shaykh, what is correct?
The Shaykh : The correct thing is simply: one does not resort to abrogation unless reconciliation is impossible. So we do not resort to reconciliation. You say: if we resort to reconciliation, we condition the knowledge of the timeline. That is not our subject. We do not need to claim that this is abrogating and this is abrogated as long as reconciliation is possible.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is there a need for the knowledge of the timeline in this case?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : If Allah forgives you.
The other questioner: Well, O Shaykh, if the timeline differs and reconciliation is possible?
The Shaykh : Be patient, my brother. Let us stick to one thing. May Allah guide you. You are the second one who has confused us with one thing. Now, with the first one, and we praise Allah that finally we agreed and the matter became clear. The condition that you... May Allah reward you. It is not in the negative sentence: "One does not resort to reconciliation to abrogation if reconciliation is possible."
The questioner : One does not resort.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : One does not resort to abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible in any way.
The Shaykh : Your condition is not applicable. But if, for example, you or I claim that this is abrogating and this is abrogated, your condition applies here. Your claim would be a positive claim, whereas our claim is negative: one does not resort to claiming abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible. There is no condition here; the condition is the possibility of reconciliation. It is clear, if Allah wills!
The questioner : This is clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : As for your saying that this is deficient!
The questioner : How does that mean?
The Shaykh : You must add to it. You must.
The questioner : The demonstrative pronoun indicates proximity, and you are close to it, and the issue is close!
The Shaykh : Hehe. Excuse me, I did not understand. What is correct? You must say it this way. My claim is also this.
The questioner : It is clear.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The questioner : Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The questioner : I am rambling.
The Shaykh : Oh Allah. I firmly believe, perhaps as they say, I am not revealing a secret regarding you, that you have lived with this issue for years and know it well, since you have studied the subject and how many responses came to us and were directed to us, and so on. Therefore, I say the opposite of what you said. All of this, the first and second rules, and the third will come to you. It is not possible to delve into such an issue except after agreeing on these principles and these rules. The third rule, as I claim, is the exception of the less from the more. What is your opinion of this rule?
The questioner : Exception.
The Shaykh : Of the less from the more.
The questioner : I did not understand anything about the question. What is meant, O Shaykh?
The questioner : And I add another condition, O Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : And the knowledge of the timeline?
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. And the knowledge of the timeline is part of claiming abrogation. We say: one does not resort to abrogation!
The questioner : How?
The Shaykh : This is the opposite of what we say!
The questioner : How, O Shaykh?
The other questioner: The Shaykh's words are precise. That one does not resort to abrogation now means the Shaykh is denying abrogation?
The Shaykh : Ah.
The other questioner: You are now denying abrogation after knowing the timeline!
The Shaykh : Ah.
The other questioner: This is the opposite.
The Shaykh : ...
The questioner : What I understood from the Shaykh's words is that abrogation is not asserted except after the condition the Shaykh mentioned, which is the absence.
The Shaykh : Unless reconciliation is impossible.
The questioner : Yes, the impossibility of reconciliation. So I say, and another condition is added to it, which is also the knowledge of the timeline.
The Shaykh : This is wrong, my brother. May Allah guide you.
The questioner : Okay, how, O Shaykh? Correct me.
The Shaykh : This is said when a claimant asserts that this is abrogating. You say, with the condition of knowing the timeline. I say the opposite.
The questioner : What are we discussing, O Shaykh? The statement I made is: one does not resort to abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation!
The Shaykh : Yes, we are done, we are at rest. You are contradicting me on this!
The questioner : O Shaykh, I am adding another condition!
The Shaykh : My brother, this addition comes later!
The other questioner: In the proof now, there is only negation.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : This is how we need to work, my brother.
The questioner : O Shaykh, excuse me. My brother, the brother Ahmad Masilh, told me to speak about it.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : The brother Ahmad Masilh whispered to me, saying: think about it. So I want to ask what you understood from it, to see if I or someone else understood what I understood, or did not understand.
The Shaykh : No, we agreed that it is between you and me, and leave the people alone.
The students: Hehe.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The questioner : One does not resort to reconciliation to abrogation except after the impossibility of reconciliation in any way, and the knowledge of the timeline are two conditions for abrogation.
The Shaykh : This statement is wrong.
The questioner : Okay, O Shaykh, what is correct?
The Shaykh : The correct thing is simply: one does not resort to abrogation unless reconciliation is impossible. So we do not resort to reconciliation. You say: if we resort to reconciliation, we condition the knowledge of the timeline. That is not our subject. We do not need to claim that this is abrogating and this is abrogated as long as reconciliation is possible.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, is there a need for the knowledge of the timeline in this case?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : If Allah forgives you.
The other questioner: Well, O Shaykh, if the timeline differs and reconciliation is possible?
The Shaykh : Be patient, my brother. Let us stick to one thing. May Allah guide you. You are the second one who has confused us with one thing. Now, with the first one, and we praise Allah that finally we agreed and the matter became clear. The condition that you... May Allah reward you. It is not in the negative sentence: "One does not resort to reconciliation to abrogation if reconciliation is possible."
The questioner : One does not resort.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : One does not resort to abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible in any way.
The Shaykh : Your condition is not applicable. But if, for example, you or I claim that this is abrogating and this is abrogated, your condition applies here. Your claim would be a positive claim, whereas our claim is negative: one does not resort to claiming abrogation as long as reconciliation is possible. There is no condition here; the condition is the possibility of reconciliation. It is clear, if Allah wills!
The questioner : This is clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : As for your saying that this is deficient!
The questioner : How does that mean?
The Shaykh : You must add to it. You must.
The questioner : The demonstrative pronoun indicates proximity, and you are close to it, and the issue is close!
The Shaykh : Hehe. Excuse me, I did not understand. What is correct? You must say it this way. My claim is also this.
The questioner : It is clear.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The questioner : Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh : Hehe.
The questioner : I am rambling.
The Shaykh : Oh Allah. I firmly believe, perhaps as they say, I am not revealing a secret regarding you, that you have lived with this issue for years and know it well, since you have studied the subject and how many responses came to us and were directed to us, and so on. Therefore, I say the opposite of what you said. All of this, the first and second rules, and the third will come to you. It is not possible to delve into such an issue except after agreeing on these principles and these rules. The third rule, as I claim, is the exception of the less from the more. What is your opinion of this rule?
The questioner : Exception.
The Shaykh : Of the less from the more.
The questioner : I did not understand anything about the question. What is meant, O Shaykh?