He spoke about the issue of the general and the specific.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : That is, another expression that might be more reasonable regarding the science of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) is giving precedence to the specific over the general. Giving precedence to the specific over the general, is that clear?
The questioner : No, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. All right,[Al-'Ankabut 29:43] We always bring up some examples to respond to the Quranists, and you must have a good idea about them.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the Quran says explicitly:[Al-Ma'idah 5:3] to the end of the verse. Now, if we asked a Quranist, "What is the ruling on the dead of fish?" What do you suppose his answer would be? Being a Quranist, he would say, is it lawful or forbidden?
The questioner : It must be forbidden.
The Shaykh : Well done. I think we do not forbid the dead of fish!
The questioner : Yes, there is no doubt.
The Shaykh : Very good. By what evidence?
The questioner : The hadith.
The Shaykh : By the evidence of the hadith.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Look, now those two rules, or rather we say the rule in both expressions, are manifested here: excluding the lesser from the greater, specifying the general by the specific. The general here is meaning every dead thing, correct?
The questioner : No doubt, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : All right, when the hadith came,Sunan Ibn Majah 3314Sahih (Darussalam) the meaning of the verse became except for fish and except for locusts.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We took this exception from the hadith, so we excluded the lesser from the greater. The greater is the dead thing, because it is a comprehensive text covering hundreds of types of dead things. But here, two types of dead things came: the fish and the locust. Likewise, it is said regarding the liver and the spleen in relation to blood. This is what the scholars of usul al-fiqh mean. And no offense, these are the rules and conventions they established to facilitate understanding, like the grammatical terms: subject, object, object for the sake of, and so on. Why? So that no one gives a lecture saying "object for the sake of" or "object with" or something like that. It is a convention, and every people have the right to use whatever terms they wish. So now, if you wish, you can establish the rule of specifying the general by the specific, and that one takes the specific over the general, and specifies the general by the specific, or excludes the lesser from the greater!
The questioner : My Shaykh, you said at the beginning of the speech, do you say giving precedence to the specific over the general? Given the precision we have followed, I said I did not understand. If I had known that you meant specifying the general by the Quran, and the Quran and the Sunnah, and the Sunnah being mutawatir (mass-transmitted) and ahad (limited chain), I affirm it and establish it.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Specifying the general by the specific, with conditions.
The Shaykh : With conditions.
The questioner : Even if the discussion comes up, my Shaykh, because in one of them we will address it during the discussion on gold jewelry.
The Shaykh : No problem, with conditions. You say with conditions.
The questioner : With a condition, my Shaykh. We will only address it so that the speech does not become, "Did you say it or not?"
The Shaykh : All right, before we hear your condition, do you see a difference between what we agreed on in expression, specifying the general by the specific? We agreed on this, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, do you see a difference between this and the expression "excluding the lesser from the greater"?
The questioner : My Shaykh, I see excluding the lesser as broader, because it includes the tool "except" (illa), and the scholars have a word on the connected and the disconnected!
The Shaykh : All right, what does "excluding the lesser from the greater" mean in relation to what you attribute to the scholars?
The questioner : Excluding the lesser from the greater.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : My Shaykh, regarding specifying the connected, the scholars prevent excluding the greater from the general.
The Shaykh : There is no general here. The greater is the general. May Allah reward you.
The questioner : My Shaykh, the general.
The Shaykh : The general is the greater.
The questioner : The lesser is excluded from it. The scholars say if the text comes connected, it is permissible to exclude the greater because it was revealed as one unit. But specifying is not permissible; specifying the greater by evidence is not allowed. The discussion will come when the research comes, my Shaykh, because I am now, in my opinion, we have not entered the beginning of the issue.
The Shaykh : And Allah knows best. This thing is not in your opinion.
The questioner : I want to be.
The Shaykh : In my intention, I am.
The questioner : I want to be precise, my Shaykh!
The Shaykh : No, no. In my intention, if I were precise, I would not say "in your opinion," because the meaning of the speech is that perhaps in the opinion of others it is not so. I am telling you, in my intention, we will not enter the topic until after clarifying the rules and agreeing on them. What is the speech? There is no "in my opinion" and "in your opinion."
The questioner : The other: It was directed to you.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : The other: This speech was directed to you.
The Shaykh : It is this. The important thing is, I say in many such occasions, I do not care about discussing the wording, as long as we agreed on specifying the general by the specific. You are with me, if Allah wills.
The questioner: With you, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, so we do not stop at "excluding the lesser from the greater," as long as it may be difficult for you now. What is the condition in your view for specifying the general by the specific?
The questioner : My Shaykh, the scholars mentioned, and this is one of the arguments on my side, of course, in my opinion?
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible. It is not permissible for you to use this premise.
The questioner : The scholars mentioned that it is not permissible to specify the general by its greater part, such that more of it is specified, so that the word for which the general word was intended remains with its meaning.
The Shaykh : The speech is not understood. Allow me?
The questioner : Please, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Allow me to explain your speech in your language!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As I did for you, and what is the reward for kindness but kindness?
The questioner : May Allah reward you, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh: All right, go ahead.
The questioner : My Shaykh, now I want to give an example, if possible.
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
The questioner : If it is said that six men, for example, were invited to a party.
The Shaykh : A party for what?
The questioner : A party, an Islamic party.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The students: Heh heh
The questioner : So if ten men were invited and two attended, is it permissible for one of them to say, "The invitees attended"?
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The questioner : My Shaykh, I believe it is incorrect Arabic if he says, "The invitees attended."
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, considering the majority.
The questioner : Only two attended, my Shaykh, and eight were absent.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, the opposite. I understood!
The questioner : Yes, the opposite. I agree with you, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, good, because what I understood is that if we agree on the correctness of the misunderstanding.
The questioner : Far be it from you, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Hahaha. All right, it is not correct if only two attended. It is not correct.
The questioner : So it is not permissible to specify the general, which is the word "invitees," such that it does not retain its meaning for the subject for which it was brought. If four or five remained, yes, we say, "The invitees attended," meaning five or six of the ten.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if it remained, and if it was the opposite, correct.
The questioner : Without a doubt.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : And its examples are numerous and abundant in the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : No, there is nothing on it. Now, according to what I understood from you, you brought the plate toward you.
The questioner : Praise be to Allah. Generosity is required, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Haha, but I did not come for generosity. I give with my mind.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Hahaha. Now explain the topic, as they say today, put the dots on the letters.
The questioner : Regarding the whole topic?
The Shaykh : Yes, the topic of gold jewelry. Is the forbidden more or the permissible more?
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I hope based on the previous agreement.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The answer.
The questioner : The one in ihram.
The Shaykh : The forbidden is more, not the permissible more. What do you see?
The questioner : I do not see it as good.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : The answer is that the permissible is more, according to the speech we said.
The Shaykh : The permissible.
The questioner : More, regarding women.
The Shaykh: Good.
The questioner : The gold is lawful.
The Shaykh : If the exception is correct.
The questioner : My Shaykh, the exception is excluding the greater. Specifying, we do not say the word "exception," my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is good.
The questioner : For me, it is specifying.
The Shaykh : Specifying.
The questioner : Specifying of the greater.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, correct. Specifying.
The questioner : My Shaykh, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because it is specifying of the greater. Nothing remains. The word "gold" is a generic name, a collective, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, allow me, allow me. You said "nothing remains"!
The questioner : It is mentioned!
The Shaykh : It does not benefit you. The types of using gold are limited to three types, and it is not possible to use gold in more than three types. At least, I do not say by the dozens, is that an exaggeration?
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Can it be used in more than these three or not?
The questioner : My Shaykh, let me answer you with what I have.
The Shaykh: No.
The questioner : If I have an error, correct me.
The Shaykh: No, no.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do not demolish. It is enough for you to demolish once, twice, three times.
The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah from demolition.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. Tell me, good speech is that which is little and instructive.
The questioner : There is no doubt.
The Shaykh : Is the gold permissible for women, the permissible for women, a wider circle, or is the circle of the forbidden in three types?
The questioner : My Shaykh, I did not understand the question. The second part, the permissible!
The Shaykh : You know that the forbidden is three, three, by the text of the hadith that we collect in one word?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Gold-plated items.
The questioner : My Shaykh, from me, I do not accept this. How do you ask me with a question!
The Shaykh : But I.
The questioner : I do not accept it.
The Shaykh : I did not say you accept it.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I did not enter the topic of acceptance!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The topic is that I claim it is a specifier of the general?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I claim it.
The questioner : Is it more or less? I say more.
The Shaykh : This is what we are asking you about.
The questioner: May Allah reward you with good, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Why are you telling me I am not convinced!
The questioner : What is it? You are a Shaykh. We walked on the edge of the sword, one edge of the sword, by Allah!
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : So I am precise in my speech so that I do not fall with you!
The Shaykh : But I don't see it that way.
The questioner : I will answer you frankly, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Ha ha, there is no power and no strength except by Allah.
The questioner: Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh : Permissible gold? No.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : How many types can you imagine in your mind right now? Fifteen, twenty, less, more, say whatever you want, but be clear.
The questioner: Many.
The Shaykh : Many? Ten?
The questioner : O Shaykh, I don't know what you want to ask!
The Shaykh : That is the method of one who wants to discuss and reach the truth: that you know what I have, that this is a mistake, that this is a mistake on your part.
The questioner : O Shaykh, a book is read from its title.
The Shaykh : Because you mean that you are currently wrestling with me!
The questioner : Far be it from Allah.
The Shaykh : No, not at all.
The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah.
The Shaykh : Far be it from Allah, but your action indicates this; frankly, I don't know what you know, meaning you will beat me down and trample me as a wrestler does.
The questioner : I wish you would.
The Shaykh : And the duelist, and so on, ha ha, until he knows how to throw him on his head, my brother, that is not how we handle our subject!
The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah.
The Shaykh : What is your concern? Do you know where I am taking you? My aim is your guidance, just as your aim is my guidance. So think in the way you want, and I will help you guide me to the truth where I have erred, just as I do with you. Your expression is very dangerous.
The questioner : The Shaykh :
The Shaykh : Truly, it is very dangerous.
The questioner : O Shaykh, there is no objection to research. When you ask a question, you want to say that the necklace, the ring, and the bracelets are three types. How many types of gold do you say? Do you want to ask me this question?
The Shaykh : What is it with you? What do I want, my brother? Take what I want from my words?
The questioner : Do you say "type"?
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, you want to reach what is in my heart!
The questioner : O Shaykh, I...
The Shaykh : You will not be able to.
The questioner : I, without doubt, am asking you...
The Shaykh : Why do you try the impossible?
The questioner : To forgive me in the research regarding the number of people sitting.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : To forgive me in the research if I overstep regarding the number of the brothers sitting, because they are all dear to you?
The Shaykh : And more than them.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh. May Allah bless you. We don't want the number of books.
The Shaykh : Ha ha, I have a chance, ha ha ha.
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Now I asked you and you did not answer me.
The questioner : O Shaykh, I say my answer to your question is that there are many types.
The Shaykh : Meaning you force me to repeat the question, meaning they are limited to ten, no more, and up to no limit.
The questioner : More? It is impossible for there to be no limit.
The Shaykh : Well done, more than ten.
The questioner : More than ten.
The Shaykh : Fine, if we exclude in our opinion three, we would have contradicted the rule you mentioned earlier regarding the scholars.
The questioner : O Shaykh, I do not think this question is correct. Do I have to agree with every question you ask?
The Shaykh : My brother, there is a rhetorical question, a rhetorical one. If you agree with me on the prohibition of these three types, you would have contradicted the scholarly rule.
The questioner : O Shaykh, that is not my intention.
The Shaykh : I am asking you a question, I am asking you a question.
The questioner : I did not contradict.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.
The questioner : Concession is possible.
The Shaykh : Allow me, this issue, we will never reach an understanding. I am asking you: if you agree with me on the prohibition of these three types, you have contradicted the rule.
The questioner : No, I did not contradict, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : This is the answer, may Allah bless you. So if, within my understanding, I am convinced of the prohibition of these three types, I am patient.
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Be patient. What makes you patient is Allah.
The questioner : I imagined it was something else.
The Shaykh : How did you imagine?
The questioner : I imagined the rule was that it is permissible for a person to, meaning, to adopt the opposing school of thought rhetorically, not that the rule is the exception of the majority.
The Shaykh : My brother, I am telling you, may Allah guide you, I am telling you if you are convinced as I am convinced...
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Of the prohibition of these three types, we would have contradicted the rule I mentioned.
The questioner : Yes, that would be my answer. Yes, O Shaykh, I imagined the rule was rhetorical concession with you.
The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar, my brother, I am convinced of these three exceptions.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I am convinced, I am telling you, regarding you, rhetorically, regarding you...
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As for what is in the discussion of the subject.
The questioner : Good, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I am convinced of these three.
The questioner : Good.
The Shaykh : So did I contradict the rule I told you about?
The questioner : Yes, you contradicted it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : O Shaykh, the necklace includes most of the gold!
The Shaykh : What do you mean "most of it"?
The questioner : The necklace, the bracelets, the ring, the pendant, and all these things!
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, the word "necklace."
The questioner : From my perspective...
The Shaykh : Yes, from your perspective, from your perspective.
The questioner : Far be it from Allah.
The Shaykh : The word "necklace" is a technical term. Do you know this? And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. And you are not studying the subject as I am studying it!
The questioner : O Shaykh, if you were a bit more careful!
The Shaykh : Because you are coming to think about rhetorical issues, while we have legal issues and we have technical issues. So, is the rule you presented to me, the first and the second and so on, and the rule you explained earlier, is this from the Shari'ah or is it a technical term of the scholars?
The questioner : A legal technical term?
The Shaykh : Good. So now, the word "necklace" is a text from the Lawgiver and a technical term agreed upon by the scholars, which is the right thing to say[As-Saffat 37:92].
The questioner : O Shaykh, caution is from Allah!
The Shaykh: There is no deity but Allah.
The questioner : Are there texts that came with "ring," the gold ring?
The Shaykh : Caution is from Allah in matters that require reliance on thought. But as for matters you are prepared for and have studied, there is no caution here. Here, the opposite of what you said is said: "The best of deeds is the immediate," otherwise we will waste our time. But until now, we have not reached the subject. You said it is best in my opinion, we have not reached it. Why? Because we have not established foundations to agree upon, the last of which is the word "gold necklace." So I...
The questioner : No, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is not clear. All right,
And these examples We present to the people
و تلك الأمثال نضربها للناسThe questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, the Quran says explicitly:
Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine
حرمت عليكم الميتة و الدم و لحم الخنزيرThe questioner : It must be forbidden.
The Shaykh : Well done. I think we do not forbid the dead of fish!
The questioner : Yes, there is no doubt.
The Shaykh : Very good. By what evidence?
The questioner : The hadith.
The Shaykh : By the evidence of the hadith.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Look, now those two rules, or rather we say the rule in both expressions, are manifested here: excluding the lesser from the greater, specifying the general by the specific. The general here is
Forbidden to you are dead animals
حرمة عليكم الميتةThe questioner : No doubt, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : All right, when the hadith came,
Two kinds of dead meat and two kinds of blood have been permitted to us
أحلت لنا ميتتان ودمانForbidden to you are dead animals
حرمة عليكم الميتةThe questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : We took this exception from the hadith, so we excluded the lesser from the greater. The greater is the dead thing, because it is a comprehensive text covering hundreds of types of dead things. But here, two types of dead things came: the fish and the locust. Likewise, it is said regarding the liver and the spleen in relation to blood. This is what the scholars of usul al-fiqh mean. And no offense, these are the rules and conventions they established to facilitate understanding, like the grammatical terms: subject, object, object for the sake of, and so on. Why? So that no one gives a lecture saying "object for the sake of" or "object with" or something like that. It is a convention, and every people have the right to use whatever terms they wish. So now, if you wish, you can establish the rule of specifying the general by the specific, and that one takes the specific over the general, and specifies the general by the specific, or excludes the lesser from the greater!
The questioner : My Shaykh, you said at the beginning of the speech, do you say giving precedence to the specific over the general? Given the precision we have followed, I said I did not understand. If I had known that you meant specifying the general by the Quran, and the Quran and the Sunnah, and the Sunnah being mutawatir (mass-transmitted) and ahad (limited chain), I affirm it and establish it.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Specifying the general by the specific, with conditions.
The Shaykh : With conditions.
The questioner : Even if the discussion comes up, my Shaykh, because in one of them we will address it during the discussion on gold jewelry.
The Shaykh : No problem, with conditions. You say with conditions.
The questioner : With a condition, my Shaykh. We will only address it so that the speech does not become, "Did you say it or not?"
The Shaykh : All right, before we hear your condition, do you see a difference between what we agreed on in expression, specifying the general by the specific? We agreed on this, correct?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, do you see a difference between this and the expression "excluding the lesser from the greater"?
The questioner : My Shaykh, I see excluding the lesser as broader, because it includes the tool "except" (illa), and the scholars have a word on the connected and the disconnected!
The Shaykh : All right, what does "excluding the lesser from the greater" mean in relation to what you attribute to the scholars?
The questioner : Excluding the lesser from the greater.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : My Shaykh, regarding specifying the connected, the scholars prevent excluding the greater from the general.
The Shaykh : There is no general here. The greater is the general. May Allah reward you.
The questioner : My Shaykh, the general.
The Shaykh : The general is the greater.
The questioner : The lesser is excluded from it. The scholars say if the text comes connected, it is permissible to exclude the greater because it was revealed as one unit. But specifying is not permissible; specifying the greater by evidence is not allowed. The discussion will come when the research comes, my Shaykh, because I am now, in my opinion, we have not entered the beginning of the issue.
The Shaykh : And Allah knows best. This thing is not in your opinion.
The questioner : I want to be.
The Shaykh : In my intention, I am.
The questioner : I want to be precise, my Shaykh!
The Shaykh : No, no. In my intention, if I were precise, I would not say "in your opinion," because the meaning of the speech is that perhaps in the opinion of others it is not so. I am telling you, in my intention, we will not enter the topic until after clarifying the rules and agreeing on them. What is the speech? There is no "in my opinion" and "in your opinion."
The questioner : The other: It was directed to you.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : The other: This speech was directed to you.
The Shaykh : It is this. The important thing is, I say in many such occasions, I do not care about discussing the wording, as long as we agreed on specifying the general by the specific. You are with me, if Allah wills.
The questioner: With you, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, so we do not stop at "excluding the lesser from the greater," as long as it may be difficult for you now. What is the condition in your view for specifying the general by the specific?
The questioner : My Shaykh, the scholars mentioned, and this is one of the arguments on my side, of course, in my opinion?
The Shaykh : No, it is not permissible. It is not permissible for you to use this premise.
The questioner : The scholars mentioned that it is not permissible to specify the general by its greater part, such that more of it is specified, so that the word for which the general word was intended remains with its meaning.
The Shaykh : The speech is not understood. Allow me?
The questioner : Please, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Allow me to explain your speech in your language!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As I did for you, and what is the reward for kindness but kindness?
The questioner : May Allah reward you, our Shaykh.
The Shaykh: All right, go ahead.
The questioner : My Shaykh, now I want to give an example, if possible.
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
The questioner : If it is said that six men, for example, were invited to a party.
The Shaykh : A party for what?
The questioner : A party, an Islamic party.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The students: Heh heh
The questioner : So if ten men were invited and two attended, is it permissible for one of them to say, "The invitees attended"?
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The questioner : My Shaykh, I believe it is incorrect Arabic if he says, "The invitees attended."
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, considering the majority.
The questioner : Only two attended, my Shaykh, and eight were absent.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, the opposite. I understood!
The questioner : Yes, the opposite. I agree with you, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes, good, because what I understood is that if we agree on the correctness of the misunderstanding.
The questioner : Far be it from you, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Hahaha. All right, it is not correct if only two attended. It is not correct.
The questioner : So it is not permissible to specify the general, which is the word "invitees," such that it does not retain its meaning for the subject for which it was brought. If four or five remained, yes, we say, "The invitees attended," meaning five or six of the ten.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And if it remained, and if it was the opposite, correct.
The questioner : Without a doubt.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : And its examples are numerous and abundant in the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : No, there is nothing on it. Now, according to what I understood from you, you brought the plate toward you.
The questioner : Praise be to Allah. Generosity is required, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Haha, but I did not come for generosity. I give with my mind.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Hahaha. Now explain the topic, as they say today, put the dots on the letters.
The questioner : Regarding the whole topic?
The Shaykh : Yes, the topic of gold jewelry. Is the forbidden more or the permissible more?
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I hope based on the previous agreement.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The answer.
The questioner : The one in ihram.
The Shaykh : The forbidden is more, not the permissible more. What do you see?
The questioner : I do not see it as good.
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : The answer is that the permissible is more, according to the speech we said.
The Shaykh : The permissible.
The questioner : More, regarding women.
The Shaykh: Good.
The questioner : The gold is lawful.
The Shaykh : If the exception is correct.
The questioner : My Shaykh, the exception is excluding the greater. Specifying, we do not say the word "exception," my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is good.
The questioner : For me, it is specifying.
The Shaykh : Specifying.
The questioner : Specifying of the greater.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, correct. Specifying.
The questioner : My Shaykh, it is not correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because it is specifying of the greater. Nothing remains. The word "gold" is a generic name, a collective, my Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, allow me, allow me. You said "nothing remains"!
The questioner : It is mentioned!
The Shaykh : It does not benefit you. The types of using gold are limited to three types, and it is not possible to use gold in more than three types. At least, I do not say by the dozens, is that an exaggeration?
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Can it be used in more than these three or not?
The questioner : My Shaykh, let me answer you with what I have.
The Shaykh: No.
The questioner : If I have an error, correct me.
The Shaykh: No, no.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do not demolish. It is enough for you to demolish once, twice, three times.
The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah from demolition.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. Tell me, good speech is that which is little and instructive.
The questioner : There is no doubt.
The Shaykh : Is the gold permissible for women, the permissible for women, a wider circle, or is the circle of the forbidden in three types?
The questioner : My Shaykh, I did not understand the question. The second part, the permissible!
The Shaykh : You know that the forbidden is three, three, by the text of the hadith that we collect in one word?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Gold-plated items.
The questioner : My Shaykh, from me, I do not accept this. How do you ask me with a question!
The Shaykh : But I.
The questioner : I do not accept it.
The Shaykh : I did not say you accept it.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I did not enter the topic of acceptance!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : The topic is that I claim it is a specifier of the general?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I claim it.
The questioner : Is it more or less? I say more.
The Shaykh : This is what we are asking you about.
The questioner: May Allah reward you with good, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Why are you telling me I am not convinced!
The questioner : What is it? You are a Shaykh. We walked on the edge of the sword, one edge of the sword, by Allah!
The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.
The questioner : So I am precise in my speech so that I do not fall with you!
The Shaykh : But I don't see it that way.
The questioner : I will answer you frankly, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Ha ha, there is no power and no strength except by Allah.
The questioner: Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh : Permissible gold? No.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : How many types can you imagine in your mind right now? Fifteen, twenty, less, more, say whatever you want, but be clear.
The questioner: Many.
The Shaykh : Many? Ten?
The questioner : O Shaykh, I don't know what you want to ask!
The Shaykh : That is the method of one who wants to discuss and reach the truth: that you know what I have, that this is a mistake, that this is a mistake on your part.
The questioner : O Shaykh, a book is read from its title.
The Shaykh : Because you mean that you are currently wrestling with me!
The questioner : Far be it from Allah.
The Shaykh : No, not at all.
The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah.
The Shaykh : Far be it from Allah, but your action indicates this; frankly, I don't know what you know, meaning you will beat me down and trample me as a wrestler does.
The questioner : I wish you would.
The Shaykh : And the duelist, and so on, ha ha, until he knows how to throw him on his head, my brother, that is not how we handle our subject!
The questioner : I seek refuge in Allah.
The Shaykh : What is your concern? Do you know where I am taking you? My aim is your guidance, just as your aim is my guidance. So think in the way you want, and I will help you guide me to the truth where I have erred, just as I do with you. Your expression is very dangerous.
The questioner : The Shaykh :
The Shaykh : Truly, it is very dangerous.
The questioner : O Shaykh, there is no objection to research. When you ask a question, you want to say that the necklace, the ring, and the bracelets are three types. How many types of gold do you say? Do you want to ask me this question?
The Shaykh : What is it with you? What do I want, my brother? Take what I want from my words?
The questioner : Do you say "type"?
The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, you want to reach what is in my heart!
The questioner : O Shaykh, I...
The Shaykh : You will not be able to.
The questioner : I, without doubt, am asking you...
The Shaykh : Why do you try the impossible?
The questioner : To forgive me in the research regarding the number of people sitting.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : To forgive me in the research if I overstep regarding the number of the brothers sitting, because they are all dear to you?
The Shaykh : And more than them.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh. May Allah bless you. We don't want the number of books.
The Shaykh : Ha ha, I have a chance, ha ha ha.
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Now I asked you and you did not answer me.
The questioner : O Shaykh, I say my answer to your question is that there are many types.
The Shaykh : Meaning you force me to repeat the question, meaning they are limited to ten, no more, and up to no limit.
The questioner : More? It is impossible for there to be no limit.
The Shaykh : Well done, more than ten.
The questioner : More than ten.
The Shaykh : Fine, if we exclude in our opinion three, we would have contradicted the rule you mentioned earlier regarding the scholars.
The questioner : O Shaykh, I do not think this question is correct. Do I have to agree with every question you ask?
The Shaykh : My brother, there is a rhetorical question, a rhetorical one. If you agree with me on the prohibition of these three types, you would have contradicted the scholarly rule.
The questioner : O Shaykh, that is not my intention.
The Shaykh : I am asking you a question, I am asking you a question.
The questioner : I did not contradict.
The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.
The questioner : Concession is possible.
The Shaykh : Allow me, this issue, we will never reach an understanding. I am asking you: if you agree with me on the prohibition of these three types, you have contradicted the rule.
The questioner : No, I did not contradict, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : This is the answer, may Allah bless you. So if, within my understanding, I am convinced of the prohibition of these three types, I am patient.
The questioner: Our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Be patient. What makes you patient is Allah.
The questioner : I imagined it was something else.
The Shaykh : How did you imagine?
The questioner : I imagined the rule was that it is permissible for a person to, meaning, to adopt the opposing school of thought rhetorically, not that the rule is the exception of the majority.
The Shaykh : My brother, I am telling you, may Allah guide you, I am telling you if you are convinced as I am convinced...
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Of the prohibition of these three types, we would have contradicted the rule I mentioned.
The questioner : Yes, that would be my answer. Yes, O Shaykh, I imagined the rule was rhetorical concession with you.
The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar, my brother, I am convinced of these three exceptions.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : I am convinced, I am telling you, regarding you, rhetorically, regarding you...
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : As for what is in the discussion of the subject.
The questioner : Good, Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I am convinced of these three.
The questioner : Good.
The Shaykh : So did I contradict the rule I told you about?
The questioner : Yes, you contradicted it, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : O Shaykh, the necklace includes most of the gold!
The Shaykh : What do you mean "most of it"?
The questioner : The necklace, the bracelets, the ring, the pendant, and all these things!
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, the word "necklace."
The questioner : From my perspective...
The Shaykh : Yes, from your perspective, from your perspective.
The questioner : Far be it from Allah.
The Shaykh : The word "necklace" is a technical term. Do you know this? And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. And you are not studying the subject as I am studying it!
The questioner : O Shaykh, if you were a bit more careful!
The Shaykh : Because you are coming to think about rhetorical issues, while we have legal issues and we have technical issues. So, is the rule you presented to me, the first and the second and so on, and the rule you explained earlier, is this from the Shari'ah or is it a technical term of the scholars?
The questioner : A legal technical term?
The Shaykh : Good. So now, the word "necklace" is a text from the Lawgiver and a technical term agreed upon by the scholars, which is the right thing to say
What is [wrong] with you that you do not speak?"
مالكم لا تنطقونThe questioner : O Shaykh, caution is from Allah!
The Shaykh: There is no deity but Allah.
The questioner : Are there texts that came with "ring," the gold ring?
The Shaykh : Caution is from Allah in matters that require reliance on thought. But as for matters you are prepared for and have studied, there is no caution here. Here, the opposite of what you said is said: "The best of deeds is the immediate," otherwise we will waste our time. But until now, we have not reached the subject. You said it is best in my opinion, we have not reached it. Why? Because we have not established foundations to agree upon, the last of which is the word "gold necklace." So I...
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.