Continuation of the Explanation of the Hadith: (Indeed, time has come full circle as it was on the day Allah created the heavens and the earth. The year is twelve months, of which four are sacred...)

The Shaykh : Now, in this hadith, we continue. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Dhu al-Qa'dah is pronounced with a fathah, and Dhu al-Hijjah with a kasrah. This is the most eloquent form. It is permissible to say Dhu al-Qi'dah and Dhu al-Hajjah, but the most eloquent is the reverse: Dhu al-Qa'dah and Dhu al-Hijjah. And Muharram. Why did Allah make these months sacred? Because they are the season of Hajj. People travel to Mecca for a month and return for a month. So these months were made sacred, and fighting is forbidden in them. A person would come from the farthest part of the Peninsula and return to its farthest part, and no one would harm him. As for the fourth, he says: It is as if there is another Rajab that is not the Rajab of the Makhzum tribe, and it is not in this place. He says: Jumada al-Akhirah and Sha'ban. This is the Rajab. Muharram is a sacred month like Dhu al-Qa'dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, and Muharram, in which fighting is forbidden. Is fighting in these sacred months abrogated, or is it still in effect? The correct view is that it is still in effect, except for one who aggresses against us; then we aggress against him as he aggressed against us. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: He asked them, and he knew. Did he not know? He knew, but to draw attention and to establish what would be imposed upon them. Which month is this? We said, "Allah and His Messenger know best." So he remained silent until we thought he would name it by a name other than its own.
"Allah and His Messenger know best" contains a point of difficulty, which is the coupling of the Messenger's knowledge with Allah's knowledge by a conjunction that implies equality. This is problematic. However, the answer is that if the matter is a religious one, there is no harm in saying "Allah and His Messenger know best." This is because what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) has of the Shari'ah is from Allah, from the Shari'ah of Allah. So the knowledge that the Messenger has, for example, is knowledge that is with Allah. For this reason, Allah the Exalted said: Stop. He did not say "and His Messenger" because this giving is a religious giving, and the religious giving of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is from the giving of Allah. In reality, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is not independent in this giving; rather, it is from the giving of Allah. But if the matter is a natural one, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is a Messenger of the Shari'ah, not a Messenger of nature and decree. If it is a natural matter, it is connected with "then." For this reason, when the man said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), "What Allah wills and what you will," he said: This is the difference.
And the silence of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is a good form of teaching, for when a person is speaking and then stops, what effect does that have on the listeners? Do they become eager, or do they become confused? They become eager, or they become confused and then eager, asking, "What stopped him?" Then the speech comes to hearts that have stretched out for it and prepared to accept it. For this reason, he was silent and then informed them... We thought he would name it by a name other than its name, so he said: We said, "Yes." The interrogative is for affirmation, and it is answered with "Yes" as an affirmation of it. He said: We said, "Allah and His Messenger know best." He knows which city this is, and they know it too, but they thought he would name it by a name other than its name. He said, "So he was silent until we thought he would name it by a name other than its name." He said: We said, "Yes." The "al" in "al" here is for mental reference, not for totality or for the generic; it is for mental reference, meaning the well-known, customary city among you, as Allah the Exalted said: Look at the caution when he said: One might imagine that His lordship is specific to this city. Then he said: (Glorified and Exalted is He). All right, we said, "Yes." He said: We said, "Allah and His Messenger know best." So he was silent until we thought he would name it by a name other than its name, then he said: We said, "Yes." This is the point of the evidence. So this day is the Day of Sacrifice, and the apparent meaning of the hadith is that anything other than it is not the Day of Sacrifice, because he said: and he did not say, "Is it not a day of sacrifice?" but rather, "Is it not the Day of Sacrifice?" meaning that in anything other than it, there is no sacrifice. Yes, and this is the point of those who said that the sacrifice is specific to this day. But the correct view is that it is general for this day and the three days following it, as we indicated earlier. And the specification of this day as the Day of Sacrifice is because it is the beginning of the days, and because the sacrifice in it is better than what follows, and because most of the sacrifice takes place on this day. All right, then he said: Muhammad said, and I think he said: We do not have in your country... In other hadiths: Your lives, your blood, and your wealth, and your wealth and your honor. Three categories: blood includes the soul and what is below it; wealth includes property, debts, and benefits; honor includes everything that scratches one's honor, diminishes a person, and lowers his value. It is forbidden to you. Three sacred things, each one reinforcing the other. Time: in time, the sanctity of the Day of Sacrifice is repeated twice. The first time is because it is in the sacred month, and the second time is because it is itself a sacred day. Add to that the place, and it becomes three sanctities. So the emphasis on the sanctity of wealth, blood, and honor is like the emphasis on the sanctity of this day in which three sanctities gathered. And in other hadiths: And in it is evidence that it is not possible to abrogate the respect for, or the prohibition of, wealth. So the claim of anyone who claims at any time that socialism, which involves encroaching on people's wealth, is from the religion of Allah, is invalid, because the religion of Allah is the prohibition of [encroaching on] wealth. Until when? Until the Hour. The news contains no abrogation at all, ever. All right, then he said: The purpose of this phrase is good news or warning, or both? Yes, it includes both. For in it is good news for whoever does good that his deed will not be lost, and warning for whoever does evil that his deed will not be lost and he will be asked about it. And in his saying: or his saying: like the saying of Allah the Exalted: Allah is the Greatest. Each one of us will stand before Allah, and He will ask him about his deed, about his life, and about his wealth. Imagine this great standing; what will the answer be? Yes, this is a reality that we must visualize, believing in it and being certain of it, with no doubt in it. You will stand before Allah and meet Him with what you have done. For this reason, he said: In another wording: But the intended meaning is the misguidance that is a characteristic of disbelief. And this is from the category of warning and admonition that Muslims might strike one another, and that if they fall into that, they are in misguidance and disbelief, but not one that takes them out of the religion. This is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) warned against, and not thirty years passed before it happened, and Muslims struck the necks of one another. After that, the door was broken, the awe was gone, and Muslims began to make one another taste the wrath of one another. The "lam" here: "ala" is for the opening, and the "lam" is the lam of command. For this reason, the verb is in the jussive mood, so that the witness conveys to the absent one. But the verb is broken due to the meeting of two static letters. From the witness? The witness is the sermon, and the one absent from it, even in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), those who witnessed and conveyed. Yes, there is no doubt, but it is not necessary that every single person conveyed it, because this conveying is a collective obligation, and whoever suffices has conveyed it, and the witness conveys to the absent one. And if only one witness is found, the conveying becomes an individual obligation upon him. All right, the witness conveys to the absent one, and after that sermon, how do we call him a witness? We say we do not call him a witness, but we call him a conveyor and a conveyer. A conveyor because the witness conveyed it to him, and a conveyer because it is obligatory upon him to convey, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: He said: O Allah, send blessings and peace upon him. Look at the caution. And he did not say "everything he said," but perhaps everyone who conveys it said "some," because the one who conveys it may not be more attentive than the one who heard. But some of these people are more attentive than some of these people, and this is the reality. And his saying: means I memorize, understand, and know best. They said, "Yes, and we testify that he (peace and blessings be upon him) conveyed the clear message, and that he did not leave a space in which to convey except that he conveyed it, generally or specifically. He conveys when the need for conveying arises, by the language of the situation or by the language of speech. This great hadith has great benefits in reality, but we are not in a position to enumerate them. The intended point is to mention the evidence, which is his saying: Yes.