The Shaykh's remarks on the jurisprudence of reality.

The Shaykh : This supports my previous statement that we are unable to understand; we are unable to understand the reality that we are currently circling around in our attempts to know the causes of division from the tapes.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : We are unable to, and therefore we turned to the people of Makkah.

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : So we are still seeking to know the true cause, because the issue is not just at this point regarding the jurisprudence of reality. I think you attended my talk on the jurisprudence of reality when we were with the brother. I mean, you attended my talk; it doesn't matter who...The questioner : ? It is necessaryThe Shaykh : to look into it.

The questioner : I looked into its content but did not hear it, but its text was conveyed to me.

The Shaykh : Very good. So my point is that no one disputes the jurisprudence of reality, but what was conveyed to us, perhaps from the tape, and I do not know if it was you or someone else, because the tapes, especially for my brothers, have multiplied and multiplied, and this has mixed with that, so I no longer distinguish who said this word, whether it was this one or that one. The point is that it was there, and I said to some of our brothers that this might be due to the presenter's enthusiasm, such that words come out of him that contain exaggeration. In my mind, I do not know who the speaker is, whether it is you or someone else, I do not know. The important thing is that I am discussing the opinion expressed, not the person expressing it. That is, one who does not know the jurisprudence of reality cannot speak in knowledge and fatwas except in a way that is... a scholar of the jurisprudence of reality. So in my view, and I affirm my view, that this contains exaggeration, because the jurisprudence of reality does not exceed or go beyond being a collective obligation. If some people fulfill it, it is lifted from the rest. Perhaps some other people who do not have the long-term, patient scientific spirit, as soon as they hear words that contain some exaggeration, they get angry. They do not try, for example, to think that perhaps he intends something other than what his wording leads to, and it is said here: "O Allah, by his intention, not by his wording," and so on. Not everyone has this breadth of understanding. And from here comes the back-and-forth and disagreement, and it expands and expands, especially as I mentioned earlier, that there are people who fish in muddy waters and lie in wait for both parties, so the problem grows and grows, and it does not deserve all this. But there are other things besides the issue of the jurisprudence of reality.

The questioner : I mentioned this issue as an example of points of disagreement, but there is no objection to hearing all the issues.
[Another session]

The Shaykh : Here, Abu Badr, I read up to page twenty-eight. It seemed to me as a note to remain in your mind, if Allah wills, and if you see the truth in what we mentioned, you should correct it. Everywhere you mentioned "the student of knowledge" in this issue, delete "the student of knowledge" and limit the topic to some scholars, not all scholars. Please proceed.

The questioner : I mentioned this to Shaykh Walid, so I said I would do one of two things.

The Shaykh : Do what?

The questioner : Yes, one of two things. Either I will mention...

The Shaykh : One of two ways.

The questioner : Either this reservation I mentioned, saying "Our Shaykh said so and so," and if it remains as it is, and I clarify my meaning, or I may go back and delete it, and the matter ends.

The Shaykh : I see this as fair. Your words are fair, but I see it necessary that you think so that you can dispense with attributing the opinion to me. This is certainly fair, but it is better that you think about the topic and adopt it yourself. Then, if you add to what you have built and say that so-and-so's opinion is such and such, I have no objection. But to leave the phrase as it is and say that so-and-so says such and such, I see that there is some weakness in this regarding your knowledge. So I see that you should resolve to gather your affairs and think about such issues so that the correctness of this opinion becomes more probable and you adopt it. Then, if you wish, attribute it to the one you heard it from, as we say to some of our brothers who benefit from our lessons, and even from our books, and yet when they present what they have benefited from, readers of their book think it is from their own knowledge. So we say to them: "The people of knowledge say, from the blessing of knowledge, attribute every opinion to its speaker." And so I thank you for this attribution, but I wish for you the better option, and perhaps it has become clear to you what is better, at least in my view. Is that clear?

The questioner : Yes, it is clear, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.

The questioner : And in truth, up to now I am convinced by what I mentioned, but one point remains: that if I keep it, because when I direct the speech to students of knowledge and to scholars, because I do not feel that there is a big difference sometimes, because the student of knowledge today is a scholar tomorrow, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh: May Allah will it.

The questioner : So from this angle, when I keep it, let it also remain a collective obligation for students of knowledge to prepare to be scholars, and they are preparing from this angle only.

The Shaykh : This is correct, but I do not see that this has any relation to this. In any case, the opinion is yours.

The questioner : May Allah bless you, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I have only the reminder.

The questioner: May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : May Allah preserve you.

The questioner : I will place, if Allah wills, an introduction, and I said to Shaykh Walid, an introduction in which I clarify your directives and what we have reached, and I will place the introduction and refer to some of the positions.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good and bless you. Here you say: "And from this standpoint, I found that our ignorance of our reality is a main cause of our affliction, and I was convinced that the jurisprudence of reality is a science that many students of knowledge and pioneers of the awakening have abandoned." I say there is exaggeration in this statement.

The questioner : How many pages, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Severe exaggeration.

The questioner : The page, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Do not be overly cautious. I am with you on the path, so I say: Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, when He said: meaning, if you fulfill what Allah has obligated upon you of the rulings of the Shari'ah, Allah will help you against your enemy. I believe that the main cause, in your expression, is not the ignorance of reality among many people, especially when you attribute that to students of knowledge. The main cause is the ignorance of Muslims of their religion, may Allah bless you, starting from creed to jurisprudence to behavior. This is the main cause. And therefore, it is not wise at all to magnify the trivial and small, and the opposite is exactly the case. To elevate the status of something that is a collective obligation and make it a main cause, if this expression is correct, because of the humiliation and degradation that has befallen Muslims, and the dominance of disbelievers over the greater part of their lands, and the dominance of sinful rulers over their rule, and so on. Rather, this is one of the causes, one of the causes, and not a fundamental main cause. So perhaps you will consider this. Also, you said: "Then I delivered it in a general lecture." Of course, you are the author and you mention what comes before and after this statement. So a free man is satisfied with a hint. When I hear you say: "Then I delivered it in a general lecture," you know what you mean by this statement, so you do not need me to hear what comes before and after it, is that not so?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : Well done. I say, may Allah bless you, such an issue is not permissible to raise in general lectures. And this is also something for you to think about. I mean, such research is suitable for research with strong students of knowledge. But to raise this issue in general lectures, I believe this is one of the causes of creating confusion and unrest in the hearts of the students themselves, let alone the general public to whom the disease of disagreement between students and others is transferred.

The questioner : Do you allow me here?

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : O our Shaykh, we say if this matter is agreed upon as being one of the collective obligations.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : And we said that if some people fulfill it, it is lifted from the rest, and those some are from the scholars.

The Shaykh : Yes, yes.

The questioner : I say if this issue, if this issue were established among the scholars and the students of knowledge and the general public, but due to the people's ignorance of it in the first place, there are originally those who deny that it is a collective obligation and those who do not see it that way. So explaining it and clarifying it is among the rights of the general public and the rights of students of knowledge as well, that I clarify to them that this issue is one of the collective obligations.

The Shaykh : That is not the case, in my view. As long as we agree that it is a collective obligation, a collective obligation is not obligatory upon the general Muslim population, Professor. This is obligatory upon a specific group of specialists. This type of knowledge, for example, if there were a science called physiology, a necessary science, but what do we have to do with the general public sitting and occupying their minds with a science called physiology, and us sitting to explain it to them and laying down principles and rules for them, and so on? This knowledge is only obligatory upon a small group of the general Muslim population. And I say this lecture is suitable for you and your peers among the scholars. And if you consider this an exaggeration on my part, I say it is for the strong students of knowledge like you, from those who do not hold this opinion of yours. This would benefit them. But in a general lecture, I still hold my opinion, and in any case, I hope you will reconsider.

The questioner : I will ask you another question, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : I learned that you were recently asked a question about the jurisprudence of reality, and you answered as we remember from yesterday’s tapes, and you spoke about it. A thesis or book will be written on this, is this not considered a general thesis, and the tapes have spread?

The Shaykh : No, no.

The questioner : And I do not mean a comparison between you and me.

The Shaykh : Even if you did compare.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : The answer is no, and the answer is in the old Arabic proverb: "The wall said to the nail, 'You have not split me.' The nail said, 'Ask the one who hammers me.'" You are the cause. When you delivered this lecture to the general Muslim population, and as a result, I am now more convinced of my previous suspicion, a disagreement arose among the students. By your own admission, you just said so. So when you raised the topic before all the people, then others who agree with you on the original topic, not on its detail, or rather its details, are forced, as the saying goes, "Your brother is not a hero, but he is forced." So he is now compelled to adjust his position regarding this brother who was previously in the unseen, and then he became a brother in the presence of witnesses, and praise be to Allah.

The questioner : Praise be to Allah.

The Shaykh : So they are not equal, for example, and you have no argument in this case.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And beware, I have a note here of a line or less than a line. You said: "Look at al-Ghazali’s *Fiqh al-Sirah*, for al-Albani has authenticated this hadith." I say this is an error in tracing the hadith to its sources. It must be said: "Look at the tracing of *Fiqh al-Sunnah* by al-Ghazali, for al-Albani has authenticated this hadith." As for "Look at *Fiqh al-Sunnah*," no, look at the tracing of *Fiqh al-Sunnah*, because there...

The questioner : *Fiqh al-Sirah*.

The Shaykh : ...so you said here "Look at al-Ghazali’s *Fiqh al-Sirah*," so perhaps it was dropped either by the printer or the writer.

The questioner : Not by the writer.

The Shaykh : I mean, whichever it was, the important thing now is that the word "tracing" is added, and may Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : I mean, here, O my Shaykh, since I say, what if I understood the difference precisely? I want to understand the difference precisely between the two things. What is the consequence of the difference between the two words?

The Shaykh : I will tell you the difference. If you say as you did, "Look at al-Ghazali’s *Fiqh al-Sirah*," it means that this hadith is mentioned in *Fiqh al-Sirah* and al-Albani has authenticated this hadith. The reader does not understand that this authentication is attached to al-Ghazali’s *Fiqh al-Sirah*. Whereas if you mention the reality, yes, look at the tracing of *Fiqh al-Sirah*, then the mind of any reader, whether he is intelligent, dull, or ignorant, or whatever, cannot understand anything other than what you intended in your heart, contrary to what is the reality now. At the very least, he would pause for a moment and ask, "Where is this authentication?" Ah, the one who knows that al-Ghazali’s *Fiqh al-Sirah* has al-Albani’s tracing, then it is assumed that al-Albani’s tracing is there.

The questioner : I understood, may Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And may He bless you too. And now it seems to me there is something else, and this is the affliction of souls that we were talking about today. At the time when this al-Ghazali praised al-Albani and elevated his status and his knowledge in the science of tracing, authenticating, and weakening hadiths in the introduction to the fourth edition, his soul moved him. He printed a new edition, and there are comments on some of my hadiths. I do not know, I do not rule out at all that he hired one of these hadith scholars and said to him, "Write what in the comments for you," especially those who direct their efforts to criticize al-Albani, whether with good or bad intentions, and our Lord is their accountant. So he began writing comments on al-Albani’s tracing. So perhaps a day will come, if it does not come, that *Fiqh al-Sirah* will be printed without al-Albani’s tracing. And every day, as you know, printing presses produce many, many books. So if we assume that in one of the editions, al-Ghazali wrote a comment, whether with his own pen or the pen of someone he commissioned, on this hadith that I authenticated, then another person comes and says, "No, this is weak." Like our friend, Hassan 'Abd al-Mannan. He might come to a hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari* that I had authenticated, because first I found it in *Sahih al-Bukhari* and I did not find a defect that undermines its authenticity. He comes and discovers a defect through his ignorance, and says, "No, this is weak, even if al-Bukhari narrated it." But if it were here in the tracing of *Fiqh al-Sirah*, this would remain as a statement.

The questioner : You have tired us.

The Shaykh : Here you say: "And here comes the question I direct to the students of knowledge, and I say that I see Russia and America playing the role of Persia and Rome in the past."

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : "Did we realize what was happening between the two countries during the Cold War, or do we say these are matters that do not concern us? And did we realize and analyze the phase of concord thereafter and the impact of this matter on the Muslims, or do we say disbelief is one religion?" I say this, may Allah bless you, also such a question should not be directed to students of knowledge. These are issues that concern the Shura Council. Of course, and this is an observation related to what I mentioned earlier about the Shura Council, meaning there must be a council in the state through which the state performs all obligations, whether they are individual or collective. As for the rest of the Ummah, my brother, let the rest of the Ummah perform their personal obligations, whether they are individual or collective, because this matter is not the work of an individual or individuals. Suppose you have a committee now that performs this collective obligation, like the existing Committee of Scholars for the Book and the Sunnah. But this committee presents the Sharia rulings to the state, and the state takes what it desires from them and leaves what it desires. If you had a committee like this committee, but this committee is specialized in the jurisprudence of reality, and it presents the jurisprudence of reality emanating from this committee to the state, and the state does not lift its head to this jurisprudence, what is the benefit? No benefit.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Other than that you occupied the people with something that you should have occupied them with, as I said earlier, either an individual obligation upon them personally, or a collective obligation from which they benefit by their very selves. But since this matter, the Ummah can only benefit from it through the state, then there is no benefit from this collective obligation that we praise, and we elevate its status, and we build towers and palaces upon it, and we say that it is the main cause of what we have reached, which we do not envy.

The questioner : By Allah, the topic is a main cause, O my Shaykh. I said the main cause, and I did not say the principal cause, and you say it is a cause, but without describing it as the main cause.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : So no doubt, your opinion.

The Shaykh : But here are two things, I hope they do not escape your mind. We have finished with this just now.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. Now I do not want to argue with you whether it is a main cause or not.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Suppose it is a primary cause. There is no benefit in employing a group of students of knowledge, or indeed a group of Muslim scholars, because this primary cause is a matter concerning the state. If the state does not lift its head to this effort, which stems from a committee composed of a company, then the effort is wasted. As I illustrated for you with the committee that currently exists, which they call what? The scholars’ committee? If it submits the ruling of the Shari'ah to the Muslim ruler, and then, for one reason or another—we do not want to enter into the details here—he does not apply this jurisprudence derived from the Book and the Sunnah, this is an obligatory duty upon the scholars, and they are fulfilling it, whether the government adopts their independent legal reasoning and opinion or not. However, the individuals of the Muslim community do not benefit from the jurisprudence of reality for themselves; rather, the Muslim nation benefits from it only if the Muslim state adopts the result of this jurisprudence. So here are two points, which I repeat. The first point: Suppose it is a primary matter. When is its benefit for the nation? When the state adopts it. So, we directly request that the state fulfill this important collective obligation, and we do not request it from the scholars, let alone from the students of knowledge, because it involves wasting efforts without any benefit returning to these individuals first, and then to the Muslim society second.

The questioner : Do you allow me?

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : I think that even if the state does not adopt it, the students of knowledge should still understand this matter and consider it a deficiency that needs to be completed. So, their study has a benefit. But there is no doubt that the benefit is greater if this opinion and what it has reached are adopted. However, to say that if it is not adopted, there is absolutely no benefit—many of the collective obligations now are neglected. So, the neglect of fulfilling them by one state does not mean that they should be neglected by the students of knowledge or by the scholars.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.

The questioner : Yes, and among you.

The Shaykh : What is your opinion about having a committee in the state that specializes in the jurisprudence of reality? Look, regarding our reality as Muslims, what is more obligatory for us: a committee like this, or having professionals? I do not mean that they manufacture airplanes, bombers, cannons, and cars of all types and shapes, but rather that they manufacture sewing needles for us. Is this not obligatory?

The questioner : Rather, it is obligatory.

The Shaykh : And is this not one of hundreds of obligations? But why do we address the people with something from which they do not benefit? They do not benefit from it because they are unable to fulfill it; rather, the state is able to fulfill it. If a group of wealthy Muslims wanted to fulfill this obligation—the obligation of manufacturing a rifle, which is the simplest weapon today, or the pistol that the police use to regulate relations between the state and the people, and so on—all of it is purchased from abroad, and our money goes to waste. This is undoubtedly also a collective obligation. If some of the wealthy wanted to fulfill this obligation, they would not be able to find a way to do so. So, there are matters concerning the state, and there are matters concerning the people. If we told a wealthy person, “Manufacture a factory for us that produces sewing needles,” this is possible, and I do not think the state would intervene or object. This is a collective obligation that is not being fulfilled. How many collective obligations do the Muslims fall short in fulfilling? As you know, how much money—perhaps more than ours—goes to the pockets of the disbelievers for nothing, and we could have lived as a burden on the disbelievers for a period of time, and then we would manufacture as they did. I have presented this example and others to show that collective obligations are of two types:
A type that the people fulfill, and a type that only the state can fulfill. The jurisprudence of reality and its utilization is a function of, let us say, the Shura Council, which must include scholars from all types of jurisprudence that we philosophized about with you the other day, and which led us to say that the jurisprudence of the Torah and the Gospel must be there. This must be present, but we do not burden the nation with this, because the nation only benefits from this jurisprudence if the state adopts it, and nothing else. As for the other benefit you mentioned, it is from the voluntary knowledge, meaning that the nation should have this awareness. And I say this is like the nation having the awareness that we do not have to import anything from any non-Muslim state. How is it that we import many things from states that are among the fiercest enemies of the Muslims? This is a very great matter. But what can the Muslim people do? Nothing. This is among the obligations of the Muslim state. And perhaps, if Allah wills, they will return to it.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : You say here: “And the reason for this is the disinterest of many students of knowledge.” The intention here is not that it has become frequent and repeated warnings to the students of knowledge, but rather what follows: “The disinterest of many students of knowledge from specializing in this aspect.” I think this is also a typographical error.

The questioner : Specialization, specialization, yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, it is this. A typographical error.

The questioner : If Allah wills, yes.

The Shaykh : ... “And it does not necessitate that the one who specializes in the jurisprudence of reality be a graduate of the College of Shari'ah, but rather he must have from the religious knowledge what he needs in his specialization, from what he is not excused for being ignorant of, whether it is an individual obligation or a collective obligation.” How is he not excused?

The questioner : I said that...

The Shaykh : No, we are facing the phrase.

The questioner : Facing the phrase, yes.

The Shaykh : He is not excused for being ignorant of an individual obligation or a collective obligation. He is excused. For example, I do not know anything about the science of medicine.

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : I am excused, because someone else has fulfilled this obligation.

The questioner : I did not mean that, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. I am not speaking about your intention.

The questioner : I mean that even the phrase, I do not understand it to imply this.

The Shaykh : How then? What does it imply?

The questioner : No, I want to say...

The Shaykh : Look, if we remove the word “or a collective obligation,” it corrupts the meaning in your view.

The questioner : But I want to clarify my meaning, perhaps we will see that it is not my original meaning.

The Shaykh : You, may Allah reward you, clarify your meaning by answering my question, and we will return to our style. Whether you are convinced or not, that is a separate matter.

The questioner : This is not the place for discussion.

The Shaykh : But allow me, is it correct that I suggest to you: does it corrupt the meaning in your mind if we remove the last word “or a collective obligation”? We repeat the phrase and you say: “But rather he must have from the religious knowledge what he needs in his specialization, from what he is not excused for being ignorant of, of an individual obligation.” We removed “or a collective obligation.” The meaning in your mind is corrupted... regarding this obligation.

The questioner : It is easier for me to remove, O Shaykh, the phrase “what he needs in his specialization” and stop there, and remove what follows it. That is better for me than removing “individual obligation.”

The Shaykh : Do you see how you are deviating? We did not differ on the method of correction; we only differed on defining the intended meaning. Now you have taken the right path.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And I am finished.

The questioner : So I say we stop at: “what he needs in his specialization.”

The Shaykh : Enough.

The questioner : And it ends, because I wanted it to...

The Shaykh : But do not forget then.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : That in all his specialization, it does not go beyond the collective obligation.

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : Even if we do not specify the individual obligation, the problem remains. This is what I wanted, because if we add it, sometimes...

The Shaykh : Okay, record this detail now so you remember.

The questioner : I do not want the tape, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : This is between you and him.

The questioner : No, it is not useful except a copy.The Shaykh : .

The Shaykh : This is between you and him... up to here I was able to read.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, and I thank you, O Shaykh. I truly thank you for this reading and for these additions.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. You were patient with us. May Allah reward you with good. Yes.