Reading from the author's text with commentary and collation of manuscripts: "Likewise, if it is said
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: "Likewise, if it is said: Sunan Ibn Majah 3621Sahih (Darussalam) this is a command to differ in general, including differing by dyeing the beard, because it is the cause of the general expression.
And its cause is that the action contains a general and absolute expression, both verbally and in meaning, so it is obligatory to fulfill it. Its emergence for a cause that necessitates it being included does not prevent that " ..
The Shaykh : ... is a beginning, its news is "does not prevent."
The reader: "And its emergence for a cause that necessitates it being included does not prevent that something else is included in it—even if it is said" .
The Shaykh : "Its emergence" is close in meaning to "its derivation." Deriving it for a cause means that if this ruling emerges for a cause that necessitates it being included in the cause, it does not prevent that something else is also included in it.
The reader: "Even if it is said: That the general expression is limited to its cause—because the generality here is from the side of the meaning—so it does not accept the kind of specification that verbal generality accepts.
If it is said: The command to differ is a command for absolute reality, and there is no generality in that; rather, differing in one matter is sufficient, and likewise all else they mention, from where does that necessitate differing in other than that specific action? " .
The Shaykh : It is missing in my copy.
The reciter: He says: From here until the phrase: "in that specific action", a line or so has dropped out of T. Is it present?
The Shaykh : It exists.
The reader: I repeat it, and is there a need?
"I said: This is a question that some theologians may raise regarding most of the commanded actions, and they confuse the jurists with it. Its answer is from two angles:
The first is that taqwa (mindfulness of Allah), differing, and the like of these absolute names and actions may have generality from the side of the generality of the whole to its parts, not from the side of the generality of the genus to its species. For generality has three categories:
1 - Generality of the whole to its parts: This is what the general name and its individuals do not apply to its part.
2 - Generality of the aggregate to its individuals: This is what the individuals of the general name apply to its units.
3 - Generality of the genus to its species and entities: This is what the general name itself applies to its individuals. So the first: Generality of the whole to its parts in entities, actions, and attributes, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: So the name "face" encompasses the cheek, the forehead, and the brow, and the like, and every " .
And I have a copy in B and the eyebrows. Yes, do I continue? Or first, or one, generality of the whole.
The Jews and the Christians do not dye (their hair), so differ from them.
إن اليهود والنصارى لا يصبغون فخالفوهمAnd its cause is that the action contains a general and absolute expression, both verbally and in meaning, so it is obligatory to fulfill it. Its emergence for a cause that necessitates it being included does not prevent that " ..
The Shaykh : ... is a beginning, its news is "does not prevent."
The reader: "And its emergence for a cause that necessitates it being included does not prevent that something else is included in it—even if it is said" .
The Shaykh : "Its emergence" is close in meaning to "its derivation." Deriving it for a cause means that if this ruling emerges for a cause that necessitates it being included in the cause, it does not prevent that something else is also included in it.
The reader: "Even if it is said: That the general expression is limited to its cause—because the generality here is from the side of the meaning—so it does not accept the kind of specification that verbal generality accepts.
If it is said: The command to differ is a command for absolute reality, and there is no generality in that; rather, differing in one matter is sufficient, and likewise all else they mention, from where does that necessitate differing in other than that specific action? " .
The Shaykh : It is missing in my copy.
The reciter: He says: From here until the phrase: "in that specific action", a line or so has dropped out of T. Is it present?
The Shaykh : It exists.
The reader: I repeat it, and is there a need?
"I said: This is a question that some theologians may raise regarding most of the commanded actions, and they confuse the jurists with it. Its answer is from two angles:
The first is that taqwa (mindfulness of Allah), differing, and the like of these absolute names and actions may have generality from the side of the generality of the whole to its parts, not from the side of the generality of the genus to its species. For generality has three categories:
1 - Generality of the whole to its parts: This is what the general name and its individuals do not apply to its part.
2 - Generality of the aggregate to its individuals: This is what the individuals of the general name apply to its units.
3 - Generality of the genus to its species and entities: This is what the general name itself applies to its individuals. So the first: Generality of the whole to its parts in entities, actions, and attributes, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
So wash your faces
فاغسلوا وجوهكمAnd I have a copy in B and the eyebrows. Yes, do I continue? Or first, or one, generality of the whole.