He spoke about women wearing gold.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : But there are hadiths indicating that a gold ring for women is permissible. Now, does this permissible thing not fall under the general text?
The questioner : The permissible thing falls under the general text.
The Shaykh : Yes, does the permissible thing not fall under the general text? Because it is general, as we said earlier or at the beginning of the session.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : And peace be upon you. At the beginning of the session, we brought up the verse[Al-Ma'idah 5:3] and we gave an example of the Quranists who claimed to understand from this verse that dead fish is forbidden.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : But we, the people of the Sunnah, said no, because the verse is general and was specified by what? By the carrion of fish and locusts. Now, the prohibition is general regarding the gold ring, but we have texts that permit the gold ring. We also have texts that permit the gold ring for men, perhaps you remember.
The questioner : But it is opposed by the forbidden!
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is opposed by the forbidden.
The questioner : It is nonexistent; there is no opposition to it.
The Shaykh : How did he prohibit the gold ring?
The questioner : There is no opposition.
The Shaykh : My brother, the text is general; you objected with it.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, we are talking about the specific text now!
The Shaykh : We are talking about both, may Allah guide you.
The questioner : But we are talking.
The Shaykh : We are talking about both.
The questioner : The discussion moved to the specific text. Is there a text permitting gold for men? You killed me. And is there also a text prohibiting it for men? As for women, there is only the correct, explicit text of prohibition.
The Shaykh : My brother, all this is known, but he prohibited the gold ring, did we not agree that it is general?
The questioner : There is no doubt.
The Shaykh : Fine, and did we not agree that there are texts indicating the permissibility of a ring for women? Is it not possible that these texts were during the time of permissibility?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Especially according to your method of applying possibilities to the texts, is it permissible or not?
The questioner : Welcome, may Allah will it, you returned to my method, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, I did not return. I am saying, especially according to your method. I did not return and I will not return, because this is the destruction of the Shari'ah, that we say it is possible this and it is possible that. But I am saying now, is it not possible that anything that was permissible before, based on the presumption of original permissibility, then the prohibition came as a general prohibition? From where? We can say that this permitting text was after the prohibition. In other words, these texts that permit the gold ring, specifically for women, can be before the general prohibition and can be after the general prohibition, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is there not a difference between the permitting text for the gold ring for women coming after the prohibition or before the prohibition?
The questioner : It is possible, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Very good. The conclusion is, is there a difference if it is like this or if it is like that?
The questioner : There is, of course.
The Shaykh : What is the conclusion?
The questioner : If it is before the prohibition, meaning any text that comes before the prohibition, which is the specification, does the specific text come before?
The Shaykh : The permitting text for the women's ring, the gold ring for women.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is possible that it is before the general prohibition and that it is after the general prohibition.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We asked you if there is a difference, you answered yes, so I finally asked what is the conclusion? What is the difference if the hadith permitting the gold ring for women is before the general prohibition, which we agreed is general, or after it?
The questioner : There is no difference. Did you understand the intent? Now you thought of something else.
The Shaykh : Strange.
The questioner : Yes, there is no difference between the obligation to combine the two texts.
The Shaykh : There is no difference. Is it not permissible to prioritize the prohibiting text over the permitting text?
The questioner : When combining is not possible.
The Shaykh : Combining is not possible here. How do you combine?
The questioner : I build the specific upon the general.
The Shaykh : What specific and general, my brother?
The questioner : Is there a specific text regarding women? You said that if I understood your words as I understood them.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : The specific text permitting gold for women.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : And the general text prohibited the gold ring.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : The text of prohibition or permission of the gold ring for women came before or after, is there a difference? I told you there is no difference. We build this upon that, after or before, we say he prohibited the gold ring except for women, by the previous text.
The Shaykh : My brother, the difference is very clear, and I will tell you something to clarify it for you. If the permission in the permitting text for the gold ring for women came after the prohibition, this is stronger. How is there no difference? This is stronger for the permission because it came after what? After the prohibition. This certainly specifies the general text with this permitting text because it came after the prohibition. Is this clear to you or not clear to you?
The questioner : Our Shaykh, your words are clear, but I do not see a difference, meaning, between it being before or after, as long as there is a possibility of combining with the text, there is no contradiction, because abrogation requires contradiction if there is to be abrogation, because it is the only possible probability.
The Shaykh : No, there is no abrogation here. Where is the abrogation?
The questioner : Abrogation of the permission of gold for women for this general text...
The Shaykh : Specification, my brother, may Allah guide you. This is not abrogation, it is specification, because the prohibition is general and includes men and women. So when the permission came after the prohibition, it specified this prohibition for men, excluding women.
The questioner : And if it came before, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : There is no abrogation. You returned now.
The Shaykh: It is the same thing.
The Shaykh : You returned, may Allah guide you. Now you must know the error of your expression that this is abrogation. There is no abrogation here, there is specification here.
The questioner : Is not specification partial abrogation? And that is what I intended, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : May Allah will it, and in your language, you call specification abrogation?
The questioner : Partially.
The Shaykh : I am asking you, do you call specification abrogation? May Allah guide you.
The questioner : I permit calling it that, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : What is in it, meaning, what is it?
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : Amen, O Lord.
The Shaykh : Partial abrogation, and why did you not say partial abrogation?
The students: Hehe.
The questioner: How.
The Shaykh : Why did you not say partial abrogation, but when the donkey stopped at the obstacle, he said partial abrogation. This is how understanding with people works: you have something in your mind that you express, at least incorrectly, then you patch it up by adding a clarifier, "partial abrogation."The Shaykh : "Sa'd brought it, and Sa'd was covered, / This is not how, O Sa'd, you bring in camels." I think, and Allah knows best, that you need to study the principles of jurisprudence, because now you are solving a problem here, but you do not know that you will fall into other problems regarding specification and generalization, and prioritizing the prohibiting over the permitting, and so on.
"Sa'd brought them in, and Sa'd was wrapped up *** This is not, O Sa'd, how camels are brought in." I think, and Allah knows best, that you need to study the principles of jurisprudence, because while you may solve one problem, you do not realize that you will fall into other problems regarding specification and generalization, and giving precedence to the prohibitive over the permissive, and so on.
The questioner : The permissible thing falls under the general text.
The Shaykh : Yes, does the permissible thing not fall under the general text? Because it is general, as we said earlier or at the beginning of the session.
The student: Peace be upon you.
The Shaykh : And peace be upon you. At the beginning of the session, we brought up the verse
Prohibited to you are dead animals
حرمت عليكم الميتةThe questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : But we, the people of the Sunnah, said no, because the verse is general and was specified by what? By the carrion of fish and locusts. Now, the prohibition is general regarding the gold ring, but we have texts that permit the gold ring. We also have texts that permit the gold ring for men, perhaps you remember.
The questioner : But it is opposed by the forbidden!
The Shaykh : Yes, and this is opposed by the forbidden.
The questioner : It is nonexistent; there is no opposition to it.
The Shaykh : How did he prohibit the gold ring?
The questioner : There is no opposition.
The Shaykh : My brother, the text is general; you objected with it.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, we are talking about the specific text now!
The Shaykh : We are talking about both, may Allah guide you.
The questioner : But we are talking.
The Shaykh : We are talking about both.
The questioner : The discussion moved to the specific text. Is there a text permitting gold for men? You killed me. And is there also a text prohibiting it for men? As for women, there is only the correct, explicit text of prohibition.
The Shaykh : My brother, all this is known, but he prohibited the gold ring, did we not agree that it is general?
The questioner : There is no doubt.
The Shaykh : Fine, and did we not agree that there are texts indicating the permissibility of a ring for women? Is it not possible that these texts were during the time of permissibility?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Especially according to your method of applying possibilities to the texts, is it permissible or not?
The questioner : Welcome, may Allah will it, you returned to my method, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, I did not return. I am saying, especially according to your method. I did not return and I will not return, because this is the destruction of the Shari'ah, that we say it is possible this and it is possible that. But I am saying now, is it not possible that anything that was permissible before, based on the presumption of original permissibility, then the prohibition came as a general prohibition? From where? We can say that this permitting text was after the prohibition. In other words, these texts that permit the gold ring, specifically for women, can be before the general prohibition and can be after the general prohibition, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is there not a difference between the permitting text for the gold ring for women coming after the prohibition or before the prohibition?
The questioner : It is possible, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Very good. The conclusion is, is there a difference if it is like this or if it is like that?
The questioner : There is, of course.
The Shaykh : What is the conclusion?
The questioner : If it is before the prohibition, meaning any text that comes before the prohibition, which is the specification, does the specific text come before?
The Shaykh : The permitting text for the women's ring, the gold ring for women.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is possible that it is before the general prohibition and that it is after the general prohibition.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We asked you if there is a difference, you answered yes, so I finally asked what is the conclusion? What is the difference if the hadith permitting the gold ring for women is before the general prohibition, which we agreed is general, or after it?
The questioner : There is no difference. Did you understand the intent? Now you thought of something else.
The Shaykh : Strange.
The questioner : Yes, there is no difference between the obligation to combine the two texts.
The Shaykh : There is no difference. Is it not permissible to prioritize the prohibiting text over the permitting text?
The questioner : When combining is not possible.
The Shaykh : Combining is not possible here. How do you combine?
The questioner : I build the specific upon the general.
The Shaykh : What specific and general, my brother?
The questioner : Is there a specific text regarding women? You said that if I understood your words as I understood them.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : The specific text permitting gold for women.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : And the general text prohibited the gold ring.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : The text of prohibition or permission of the gold ring for women came before or after, is there a difference? I told you there is no difference. We build this upon that, after or before, we say he prohibited the gold ring except for women, by the previous text.
The Shaykh : My brother, the difference is very clear, and I will tell you something to clarify it for you. If the permission in the permitting text for the gold ring for women came after the prohibition, this is stronger. How is there no difference? This is stronger for the permission because it came after what? After the prohibition. This certainly specifies the general text with this permitting text because it came after the prohibition. Is this clear to you or not clear to you?
The questioner : Our Shaykh, your words are clear, but I do not see a difference, meaning, between it being before or after, as long as there is a possibility of combining with the text, there is no contradiction, because abrogation requires contradiction if there is to be abrogation, because it is the only possible probability.
The Shaykh : No, there is no abrogation here. Where is the abrogation?
The questioner : Abrogation of the permission of gold for women for this general text...
The Shaykh : Specification, my brother, may Allah guide you. This is not abrogation, it is specification, because the prohibition is general and includes men and women. So when the permission came after the prohibition, it specified this prohibition for men, excluding women.
The questioner : And if it came before, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : There is no abrogation. You returned now.
The Shaykh: It is the same thing.
The Shaykh : You returned, may Allah guide you. Now you must know the error of your expression that this is abrogation. There is no abrogation here, there is specification here.
The questioner : Is not specification partial abrogation? And that is what I intended, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : May Allah will it, and in your language, you call specification abrogation?
The questioner : Partially.
The Shaykh : I am asking you, do you call specification abrogation? May Allah guide you.
The questioner : I permit calling it that, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : What is in it, meaning, what is it?
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : Amen, O Lord.
The Shaykh : Partial abrogation, and why did you not say partial abrogation?
The students: Hehe.
The questioner: How.
The Shaykh : Why did you not say partial abrogation, but when the donkey stopped at the obstacle, he said partial abrogation. This is how understanding with people works: you have something in your mind that you express, at least incorrectly, then you patch it up by adding a clarifier, "partial abrogation."The Shaykh : "Sa'd brought it, and Sa'd was covered, / This is not how, O Sa'd, you bring in camels." I think, and Allah knows best, that you need to study the principles of jurisprudence, because now you are solving a problem here, but you do not know that you will fall into other problems regarding specification and generalization, and prioritizing the prohibiting over the permitting, and so on.
"Sa'd brought them in, and Sa'd was wrapped up *** This is not, O Sa'd, how camels are brought in." I think, and Allah knows best, that you need to study the principles of jurisprudence, because while you may solve one problem, you do not realize that you will fall into other problems regarding specification and generalization, and giving precedence to the prohibitive over the permissive, and so on.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.