Chapter: And the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Eat from the good things We have provided for you."

The Reciter: Chapter: And the saying of Allah the Exalted: And His saying: And His saying:

The Shaykh : As for what is drunk, Allah the Exalted said: And because the drinker is a consumer, and the original ruling for these is permissibility; this is the original ruling, based on His saying: And there is no general formulation. And the Mighty and Majestic said: The difference between the two expressions is apparent because the meaning is different, for what is in the heavens is not eaten, but it is made subservient to us As for what is on earth, it is also made subservient to us but in addition to that, it is eaten, drunk, and worn. So the original ruling for foods is permissibility, whether they are from animals or otherwise. If someone claims that this is forbidden, we say: "The evidence is upon you." If he says, "You are the ones who must provide evidence that it is lawful," we say: "Upon my eyes and head, our evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This indicates that what is not mentioned among the matters is permissible, out of the mercy of Allah the Mighty and Majestic. The texts on this are numerous. Now, if one says this animal is forbidden and another says it is lawful, what do we say? We say: "The one who said it is lawful, we take it, slaughter it, and eat it, even if we do not know its origin, because the original ruling is permissibility until evidence is established for prohibition." Then the author cited as evidence for his ruling his saying: This command is for permissibility. And every permissible thing may be obligatory or forbidden, depending on what it is a means to. If it is a means to preserving the soul from destruction, eating is obligatory. If it is a means to abandoning obligations, eating is forbidden. The important point is that this is a general rule: every permissible thing may be obligatory or forbidden depending on what it is a means to. And his saying: means what We have given you of provision, and it is comprehensive and general. For this reason, Allah the Mighty and Majestic rebuked those who forbid the good things: This is a rhetorical question of rebuke. And He said: And his saying: requires correction because... meaning Allah the Mighty and Majestic, and we do not know a saying Allah made with this exact wording "Eat from the good things you have earned." Rather, it contains And spending implies permissibility in the broadest forms of benefit, including eating. And his saying: This is an address to the messengers, and it is an address to their ummah (community) or their communities, because the messenger is a model for his ummah. Indeed, Allah the Mighty and Majestic commanded the messengers, and the ummahs follow them, and He commanded the believers, and the messengers are included among them. But when they are gathered in a text, each one is specialized by what characterizes him. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: إن الله أمر المؤمنين بما أمر به المرسلين فقال تعالى : يا أيها الرسل كلوا من الطيبات واعملوا صالحا وقال يا أيها الذين آمنوا كلوا من طيبات ما رزقناكم Indeed, Allah commanded the believers with what He commanded the messengers, so He said: O messengers, eat of the good things and do good. And He said: O you who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you. Here, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) distinguished between the believers and the messengers. Otherwise, the original ruling is that what is established for the messengers, the believers follow. And what is conditioned by the description of faith, the messengers are the first of the believers, the first to enter into this description. Yes, my...
The Student: Is this wording a Qur'anic verse, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : and it is?
The Student:

The Shaykh : But we have "what you have earned," do you have "what We have provided for you"?
The Students: The first one, the first verse, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The first one is clear and it is in it. Now, the important point is that this permissibility includes everything Allah the Mighty and Majestic has provided for us, and it is good, and the original ruling for it is goodness until it becomes clear that it is corrupt. Now, the corrupt things are forbidden to us, as He said in describing our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): But what are the corrupt things? Are the corrupt things in taste? Are the corrupt things in smell? Are the corrupt things in effect? By what? The meaning of the verse is that nothing is forbidden except what is corrupt. If someone says, "If you make the meaning this, the meaning of the verse becomes 'And forbidden to them is the forbidden,' and this remains a tautology," then make the description to which the prohibition is attached be "corruption." The answer is that if we make the description to which the prohibition is attached be "corruption," it is not regulated, because what is corrupt to some people is good to others. Then Allah the Exalted described some things as corrupt: And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) described onions and their like as corrupt, and he said: But the meaning is that nothing is forbidden to them except what is corrupt and does not deserve to be lawful. This is the meaning. So attaching the ruling to the description is intended to clarify the cause of the prohibition, which is corruption. And in this way, we are saved from many problems that some people consider corrupt, saying "this is forbidden," while others say "no, it is not corrupt," so it is not forbidden. So what is the reference for prohibition? It is the Shari'ah, not nature. But we know that what the Shari'ah has forbidden is corrupt. For this reason, many scholars have rejected what our jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) mentioned among the forbidden things: "what the Arabs of wealth consider corrupt." He said: "The Arabs' consideration of something as corrupt is not the criterion for a legal ruling. This is a criterion for a customary ruling. Legal issues and legal rulings are received from the Shari'ah." Some Arabs eat everything, whatever comes their way, except beetles; they do not eat them. Do we say everything is lawful because it is not considered disgusting by these people? No. There are people who do not eat locusts. I know some who do not eat locusts and say, "This is an insect like the cockroach, and they are of the same family." Look at the cockroach's legs and chest, and look at the locust, and you will find the resemblance. So it is an insect among insects. How can you eat it? Until a man said, "It was about to make my liver come out" when he ate one and it did not reach his stomach. But it appears he ate it and its legs, and the legs, as you know, have barbs that catch in this, so he ate it and it caught in his throat, and he stood there stammering until he said, "It was about to make my liver come out." In any case, I say that if we make the criterion for the ruling what people consider corrupt, this is not regulated. But we say: what the Shari'ah has forbidden is corrupt. Yes, yes. Now, so we understand this rule: what is the original ruling for everything? For drinks, foods, and clothes, the original ruling is permissibility. Now, is the original ruling for slaughtered animals permissibility? Be careful: if you say yes, you are wrong. If you say no, you are wrong. Of course, if you say no, you are wrong. This requires detail, and there is detail in it: if the slaughter is by one who is qualified, meaning one who is qualified for slaughter, the original ruling is permissibility, and you do not ask, and you should not ask. I mean, if this slaughterer is a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim, we do not ask, because the original ruling for his slaughter is permissibility. Indeed, if we asked, it would be from the category of excessive scrutiny in religion and affectation. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And what indicates this is what al-Bukhari narrated from the hadith of 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), she said: And those who have recently embraced Islam are close to not knowing what is required for slaughter, because they assumed they were Muslims. And consider his saying: You will find in it something of rebuke, as if he is saying, "You are not responsible for the actions of others. Attend to your own actions. As for others, do not ask." And do not ask. And based on this, we say the original ruling for slaughtered animals is permissibility if the slaughterer is qualified. We do not say, "Perhaps he did not mention the name, perhaps he did not cut what must be cut in slaughter, perhaps, perhaps," because this, praise be to Allah, has been relieved from us. If Allah had burdened us with it, it would have been a burden of what is impossible or a burden of what is difficult. If every person brought us a slaughtered animal, we would say, "Come, who slaughtered it?" He would say, "By Allah, the one who slaughtered it is so-and-so." We would ask him, "Did you slaughter and mention the name of Allah? Did you cut the windpipe and the gullet?" Now, if we said, for example, that it is a condition for the slaughtered animal to be lawful, we would say, "Come, where did you acquire it?" He would say, "By Allah, I acquired it from so-and-so who sold it to me." Now, who is so-and-so who sold it to him? And so on. If we obligated people to know the conditions and the absence of obstacles related to the actions of others, there would be in that a hardship that only Allah the Mighty and Majestic knows. But we, praise be to Allah, if the thing is brought to us by one who is qualified, the original ruling is safety and the absence of obstacles. And in this way, we do not ask, we do not burden ourselves. Now, let us begin.