Explanation of the author's statement: "…so he did not leave any good without clarifying it and encouraging it, nor did he leave any evil without warning the community against it"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: He said: "nor did he leave any evil without warning the community against it, until he left his community upon the clear, straight path"
The Shaykh : He did not leave any good without clarifying it, he did not leave any good without clarifying it
The reader: ...
The Shaykh : Not with me, with me, "any good without clarifying it and encouraging it"
The reader: "so he did not leave any good without clarifying it and encouraging it"
The Shaykh : Is this correct or not? This is correct, because good is something that is required to be done, and he would clarify it specifically and encourage it. As for evil, we said "he did not leave any evil without warning against it," and we did not say "without clarifying it," because some evils were clarified, some were clarified and warned against, and some were not clarified but were warned against in general terms. For example, zina, theft, and killing the soul, and the like of that—is this a clarified evil or not?
The student: It is clarified.
The Shaykh : It is a clarified evil. And bid'ah (religious innovation) is evil, but is it clarified, with every specific bid'ah mentioned by name, or did it come in general terms? It came in general terms and as a warning. The difference between that and good is that good is required to be done, so it needs to be clarified specifically, so that he clarifies each thing so that I can do it. Yes, unlike evil, for evil is from the category of things to be left and things to be abandoned, so it is sometimes mentioned in detail and sometimes in summary.
One might say that the summary is clarified and explained, because when a general rule is mentioned, all the individual cases fall under it. But we avoided saying "he clarified it" because I seem to find a heaviness in it… it is said that the Messenger clarified evil, he clarified evil, he warns against evil in general terms. Yes.
The Shaykh : He did not leave any good without clarifying it, he did not leave any good without clarifying it
The reader: ...
The Shaykh : Not with me, with me, "any good without clarifying it and encouraging it"
The reader: "so he did not leave any good without clarifying it and encouraging it"
The Shaykh : Is this correct or not? This is correct, because good is something that is required to be done, and he would clarify it specifically and encourage it. As for evil, we said "he did not leave any evil without warning against it," and we did not say "without clarifying it," because some evils were clarified, some were clarified and warned against, and some were not clarified but were warned against in general terms. For example, zina, theft, and killing the soul, and the like of that—is this a clarified evil or not?
The student: It is clarified.
The Shaykh : It is a clarified evil. And bid'ah (religious innovation) is evil, but is it clarified, with every specific bid'ah mentioned by name, or did it come in general terms? It came in general terms and as a warning. The difference between that and good is that good is required to be done, so it needs to be clarified specifically, so that he clarifies each thing so that I can do it. Yes, unlike evil, for evil is from the category of things to be left and things to be abandoned, so it is sometimes mentioned in detail and sometimes in summary.
One might say that the summary is clarified and explained, because when a general rule is mentioned, all the individual cases fall under it. But we avoided saying "he clarified it" because I seem to find a heaviness in it… it is said that the Messenger clarified evil, he clarified evil, he warns against evil in general terms. Yes.