The Shaykh’s discussion of the issues raised by Mashhur regarding linking the issue of the best dhikr after prayer (with the twenty-five) to the word (do) in the hadith

But we want to discuss and benefit from our brother Mashhur’s observation regarding his mention of the hadith Perhaps you can clarify for us how the topic is linked to the principles of jurisprudence you previously mentioned. What do you mean by the hadith ? What does it indicate?
Mashhur: I want to say that the command is not as it appears on the surface; it does not indicate obligation. Rather, this came before seeking permission. The command that comes after seeking permission is like the command that comes after a prohibition. The meticulous scholars among the jurists and specialists in principles of jurisprudence choose that the command that comes after a prohibition has the same ruling as before the prohibition, and likewise the command that comes after seeking permission. It has become clear to me from the context of the situation and the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) question regarding the issue of seeking permission that it is a command like the command so that it does not occur to some of the brothers that it is, for example, an obligatory fard, apparent, "pray," "do," the form of command. So this is a command that came after seeking permission, so its ruling remains, meaning it removes abrogation. First, this is an explanation to remove abrogation, and another explanation is that it maintains the ruling of the sunnah in the tasbih, and not for obligation. And when I repeated the question, my Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good, which is better, I returned to my answer: thirty-three. If the circumstance indicates that after this seeking permission the Companions remained with this tasbih, but I said this needs research. This is what occurred to my mind after hearing from you, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. But here, does your opinion remain, considering that the one who sees in a dream says to the one who sees, "Do such and such," this has more weight than if an ordinary man said it, then consulted the Messenger, and he said No, give me that, in the name of Allah. The one who says "do" contrary to what the Messenger taught, this is not an ordinary matter. So if the Messenger says "listen to him and obey him," this gives more importance than what comes to mind, which is merely permissibility.

The questioner : In both cases, it indicates permissibility. The command here indicates the sunnah, the recommended.

The Shaykh : We are discussing the superiority.

The questioner : Yes, the discussion is only about superiority. I mentioned what I mentioned until...

Another questioner : These principles of jurisprudence that our brother Mashhur mentioned, saying that they indicate permissibility or the sunnah, do not refute your opinion, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : It does not concern me. What concerns me is that we reach a point: does this text, with these observations that appeared from some of our brothers or from me, does it remain better than that, or is that better than this?
Mashhur: My Shaykh, I mentioned what I mentioned after...

The Shaykh : No problem, may Allah bless you. Excuse me, I say after this, we return to the issue of You did not greet us, I made up for it, and upon you be peace. The hadith is that they asked, "Do we pray in the pens of the sheep?" This is the seeking permission you are referring to. He said So, does this command indicate only permissibility?
Mashhur: The specialists in principles of jurisprudence differ among themselves. Some said permissibility, but the meticulous ones among them, Ibn Kathir mentioned this, the Shaykh al-Islam mentioned this, al-Shanqiti mentioned this, and a group of meticulous scholars, that it indicates the ruling in its original state.

The Shaykh : How?
Mashhur: Meaning, the ruling that comes after a prohibition and the ruling that comes after seeking permission is its original ruling. If it was obligatory, the command returns to obligation. If it was a sunnah, it returns to the sunnah, and so on.

The Shaykh : Yes, and the conclusion?
Mashhur: That prayer is permissible. It returns to permissibility after seeking permission, unless a circumstance comes in the discussion of the rule. Circumstances only change this text if other circumstances come.

The Shaykh : Leave us the circumstances. Without circumstances, we only have the original permissibility and this command. According to what you quoted from the specialists in principles of jurisprudence, we benefit from permissibility.
Mashhur: Yes.

The Shaykh : I can say something here. If the original was prohibition, then the command came for it, also according to the saying of the specialists in principles of jurisprudence, it indicates permissibility, is that not so?
Mashhur: ... Prohibition is not the same as prohibition, my Shaykh. The rule of prohibition is temporary prohibition, not prohibition.

The Shaykh : I say if something was originally prohibited, then permission came for it, the command came for it, it removes the prohibition and indicates permissibility, is that not so?
Mashhur: My Shaykh, they say in the case of prohibition, it is not prohibition.

The Shaykh : Please, let me and them be.
Mashhur: It is not so.

The Shaykh : Yes, well done. Ah, how is it?
Mashhur: It is looked at according to its different states. It may indicate obligation. It may indicate the abrogation of the prohibition and the establishment of a new ruling, and the new ruling varies.

The Shaykh : The issue now is very limited. It is a command for something that was prohibited. Do not eat with your left hand, my son, eat with your right hand, yes, yes. The command was for something that was prohibited.

The questioner : Meaning like .
Mashhur: Prohibition, not prohibition.

The Shaykh : What is prohibition? "Hunt" is a command.
Mashhur: But it was preceded by a prohibition, a temporary ban, not a general prohibition. Prohibition is more specific than prohibition, and prohibition is more comprehensive than prohibition in the discussions of the specialists in principles of jurisprudence.

The Shaykh : Is there evidence for this detail, or is it a convention?
Mashhur: There is no evidence for it. If it is a convention of prohibition, its ruling returns to what it was before the ruling of "hunt." It is the ruling of hunting before entering the state of ihram.

The Shaykh : Yes, but is there evidence for this convention so that we can distinguish between the two? Do you have something, Professor? Please.

The questioner : Brother Mashhur, according to his statement, that the meat of camels does not require wudu because it came after the question "Do we perform wudu from the meat of camels?" He said The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) performed wudu. This indicates recommendation. What is your opinion of this statement?

The Shaykh : This is a strong point. Look, according to the opinion of the specialists in principles of jurisprudence, what is it?
Mashhur: I hit, my Shaykh. Commands without seeking permission regarding wudu from the meat of camels. I do not recall a specific text, but texts were reported.

The Shaykh : A person could say that this command that came, as I said earlier regarding our topic of tasbih after seeking permission, says after seeking permission.

The questioner : I mean what came as a text, meaning a circumstance outside this text indicating obligation. Wudu from camels was not preceded by seeking permission, like for example, without seeking permission. This is a command that indicates the command, and this is something extra to the first text.

The Shaykh : This is what I told him, I said earlier, a person could say this is understood as seeking permission.
Mashhur: The text, meaning seeking permission, is not apparent, neither in the context nor in the wording nor in the incident. Legislation.

The Shaykh : Okay, we need to return to the original issue of distinguishing between prohibition and what?
Mashhur: And prohibition.

The Shaykh : What is the evidence for this distinction?
Mashhur: Linguistically, it is a logical limit, not a legal evidence. It is just a convention.

The Shaykh : No, what concerns us is that this convention does not restrict the legal evidences nor divert them. Then a command came for what was prohibited. Let us stay with the legal terms. What does this command indicate?
Mashhur: The new command.

The Shaykh : Yes.
Mashhur: It indicated the removal of the prohibition first, and a second, additional legal ruling.

The Shaykh : What is the ruling?
Mashhur: What was customary before this prohibition.

The Shaykh : Are you going? Good!

The questioner : I have an appointment... My father is coming from Iraq.

The Shaykh : What Allah willed, faster.

The questioner : Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace. Is anyone with you?

The questioner : ... Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and Allah’s mercy and blessings. May Allah reward you with good.
Abu Layla : My Shaykh, I want to put earphones for the women.

The Shaykh : They put earphones in the rooms first, then in the open.

The questioner : Professor Ahmad cut off hope from him... He will leave you... If the woman is good, the society is good.

The Shaykh : With exaggeration! Did you forget the men...?!

The questioner : Hehe, ... the original.

The Shaykh : Okay, the matter returned to how it was before because of this command. What was the first command regarding prayer in the pens of the sheep?
Mashhur: General permissibility, the permissibility of innocence, meaning the generality of the texts indicates lawfulness.

The Shaykh : And regarding wudu from the meat of camels and sheep together?
Mashhur: It is not a breaker of wudu except

The Shaykh : It is not what?
Mashhur: It is not a nullifier of wudu' or prayer. Excuse me, you asked about wudu'. Wudu' from camel meat is not a nullifier except by the second hadith.

The Shaykh : The issue at hand is not about nullification, but about permissibility or its absence.
Mashhur: We need, Shaykh, to know the texts. Which one came first? It seems to me that...

The Shaykh : Which text?
Mashhur: The text of the general command to perform wudu' from eating camel meat. It seems to me that these commands came earlier, so they asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the obligation was established in their minds, so they did not seek permission regarding its legitimacy. And since rulings are derived from the totality of texts, not from a single command, we say it is obligatory in both cases, meaning by this and that, by this command that came after permission, and that text confirms this obligation.

The Shaykh : So here the command deviates from the general rule.
Mashhur: It deviates from the rule by the contextual evidence.

The Shaykh : And what is it?
Mashhur: and the other contextual evidences. And since we cannot determine the date of what came earlier and what came later, we treat them as a single unit. And this is how we should look at rulings; that is, the precedence or laterness does not concern us if they agree on the ruling.

The Shaykh : And regarding sheep, what is your explanation, whether in terms of praying in sheep pens or in terms of eating sheep meat without the obligation of wudu'?
Mashhur: The original ruling is that it is not obligatory, because nullifiers require a text. So the claim of obligation is what requires evidence.

The Shaykh : Yes, but you asked earlier, wasn't it permissible?
Mashhur: Wudu' from sheep meat is a topic in prayer, Shaykh. When they asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), I mentioned prayer. When they asked, "Do we pray in sheep pens?" he said, The topic is prayer; the prayer is permissible.

The Shaykh : The topic shifted to wudu'.
Mashhur: Whoever believes that wudu' is obligatory from this means he is judged to be in error, indeed to be an innovator, because he added something to the Shari'ah. And the original ruling is that nullifiers are based on divine prescription.

The Shaykh : No, the issue is not about obligation. The issue is whether this command implies more than permissibility or not? That is the discussion.
Mashhur: Permissibility only in prayer.

The Shaykh : We are done with prayer. Now we are on wudu'. When are we leaving? Where is Abu 'Abdullah? It is 6 o'clock.