Some scholars, when discussing certain jurisprudential issues, stipulate that there must be direct evidence for the issue, otherwise they will not rule on it

The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Shaykh, may Allah reward you. Some scholars, when discussing certain jurisprudential issues, sometimes stipulate that there must be direct evidence for the issue, otherwise they will not rule on it. And sometimes they rule on the issue and cite general evidence from the Shari'ah. What is the difference between...?

The Shaykh : The difference between them is that the rulings of the Shari'ah are divided into two categories: a category that the Lawgiver has specified explicitly, such as and so on, and such as His saying, the Exalted: meaning regarding women, and there are many examples of this. And another category that is not specified explicitly, but falls under the general principles of the Shari'ah and the general evidence of the Shari'ah. This is because the Shari'ah is comprehensive and general for everything, and it is not possible to specify every issue individually, because that would require many volumes that camels or cars could not carry. But there are general principles, and Allah blesses whom He wills among His servants, so they are able to attach the particulars to the rulings of these principles. For example: For instance, this hadith, although there is a consideration regarding its authenticity, the principles of the Shari'ah bear witness to it. So thousands of issues involving harm and thousands of issues involving causing harm can be included under this without being explicitly mentioned.
For example, in the era of the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), there was a dispute between two men. One of them had two plots of land, and the other man's land was between them. The owner of the two plots wanted to run water from the other man's land to his other plot. So the owner of the land refused and said: It is not possible for you to run water across my land. So the matter was brought to the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), and he ordered that the water be run across his land by force, and he said: Because this neighbor who refused to let the water pass through his land only intended to cause harm to his companion. Otherwise, the benefit is for him, meaning he would be able to plant on this running water or cultivate it, so it is a benefit for both parties. Yes.