Reading from the author's text with commentary on it, collating the manuscripts, and mentioning the benefits of Jabir's hadith and some of its issues: "Chapter: Muslim narrated in his Sahih

The reader: "Chapter: Muslim narrated in *his Sahih*, from Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn, from his father, from Jabir, in the hadith of the Farewell Pilgrimage. He said:

till the sun had passed the meridian; he commanded that al-Qaswa should be brought and saddled for him. Then he came to the bottom of the valley, and addressed the people saying: Verily your blood, your property are as sacred and inviolable as the sacredness of this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this town of yours. Behold! Everything pertaining to the Days of Ignorance is under my feet completely abolished. Abolished are also the blood-revenges of the Days of Ignorance

حتى إذا زالت الشمس - يعني يوم عرفة - أمر بالقصواء فرُحلت له فأتى بطن الوادي، فخطب الناس وقال : إن دماءكم وأموالكم حرام عليكم كحُرمة يومكم هذا، في شهركم هذا في بلدكم هذا ألا كل شيء من أمر الجاهلية تحت قدمي موضوع ، ودماء الجاهلية موضوعة

Sahih Muslim 1218a

" .

The Shaykh : Every matter of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance is abolished under his feet. This indicates the contempt for the matters of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, that it is under the foot and not above the head. This is a phrase used to demean something; a person says, "So-and-so is under my foot," and sometimes says "under my sandal" or the like. So every matter of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance is abolished under the feet of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Reflect on this intensity in the address, which you may not find in the address of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because the occasion requires it. "Everything is under my feet" is one of the phrases of kings. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), as is known, Allah the Exalted chose for him between being a king-prophet or a slave-prophet, so he chose to be a slave-prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). But the occasion requires this; it requires that a person be elevated above the matters of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, that he despise them, and that he place them under the foot. Yes.
The reader:

The Shaykh : Blood
The reader: .

The Shaykh : This is from his (peace and blessings be upon him) justice. The first usury he abolished was the usury of his uncle, al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib. He had authority over his uncle, because he was the Messenger of Allah to him and to others. So for this reason, he made himself a guardian over his uncle (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: And in this is evidence that it is not permissible to take usury absolutely, even if it was contracted in a time when usury was not forbidden, or even if it was contracted in ignorance. In any case, we said regarding a time when usury was not forbidden based on the hadith. But now, usury is forbidden. However, if a person did not know that usury was forbidden and dealt in usury, we say to him: It is not lawful for you to take anything of the usury, even if you were ignorant. If you did not know that it was forbidden, it is forbidden for you, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) abolished the usury contracted in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. But if both the giver and the taker were aware of the usury and dealt in it - the giver of the usury dealt in usury because he wanted to establish a factory or a building or the like, and the taker of the usury dealt in usury because his wealth would increase with it - and the contract was made, and then they came to us for judgment, what do we do? Do we say, "You gave the usury willingly, so give it to him," or do we forbid the taker and take it from the giver and put it in the public treasury? The second option is required. We say to the giver: Yesterday, giving was lawful, and now it has become forbidden. Why? Now we deal with you contrary to your intention. So some people, if it is demanded from them - for example, if you demand from the houses of usury the usury they contracted with you - when the term is due, they come to take it and say, "Come, I gave you ten thousand riyals for twelve thousand riyals. Now give me the twelve thousand." He says, "I seek refuge in Allah. We seek refuge in Allah from the Fire. Usury And I disavow myself to Allah from you, and I will not give you what is forbidden. And what do you say about this?"
The student: We say it is forbidden, but it is taken from him.

The Shaykh : This is not fear of Allah. If it were fear of Allah, it would have been from the beginning of the matter. So we say: We take it from him and do not give it to the other owner. Now, if they were ignorant - if he was ignorant - we do not take it from him and do not give it to the other, because if they were ignorant, the giver is excused; he did not intend it, so we do not say we punish him with discretionary punishment by taking it from him. And we do not give the other the usury either. We say: You have only your principal. And in this is a refutation of some people now who say: If you deal with non-Muslims in a usurious manner, do not give it to them because it is forbidden usury. Yes, or if you took money from them with usury, take the usury from them. This is a great error. As for the first case, there will be a bad reputation for the Muslims. So, for example, if the Muslim now repents with true repentance, we take this money from him and put it in the public benefits, and we show the first party who contracted with him that we took the usury he committed to. As for the second case, if the Muslim is the taker, we say: It is not permissible for you to take it because you know that it is forbidden, so do not take it. But if it is possible to take from this disbeliever what he offered of usury and put it in the benefits of the Muslims, there is no harm. Otherwise, it is not taken. Yes.
The reader: "

Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by words of Allah. You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner.

فاتقوا الله في النساء فإنكم أخذتموهن بأمانة الله، واستحللتم فروجهن بكلمة الله ، ولكم عليهن أن لا يُوطِئن فُرشكم أحدا تكرهونه، فإن فعلن ذلك فاضربوهن ضربا غير مبرح ، ولهن عليكم رزقهن وكسوتُهن بالمعروف

Sahih Muslim 1218a

" .

The Shaykh : This is also part of his (peace and blessings be upon him) eagerness to generalize the call, to the extent that he did not forget this issue, which may not even occur to the mind of any caller to Allah, namely women. He said: in this vast, public place that was attended by a gathering like which did not exist in Islam And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) informed us that they are captives among us, meaning female slaves. Therefore, a person must fear Allah regarding his household, his wife, and must respect her rights, because she is a poor soul who looks at her husband with the gaze of one whose hand is short (i.e., dependent). He must fear Allah the Exalted in her regard, and not wrong her or strike her except where the Shari'ah has permitted it. It has reached me that some people, and I seek refuge in Allah, although they are committed and affiliated with knowledge, strike their wives without reason and do not want them to have any say in the house at all. He may even strike her in a way that sometimes leads to her being taken to the hospital. We ask Allah for well-being. This is forbidden. Does he not fear that on the Day of Resurrection, she will cling to him and demand accountability from him? What is the benefit of using violence? If a husband uses violence with his wife, their companionship will not last; and if it does last, it will be with hardship and fatigue. But if he treats her as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded and guided to, meaning he does not hate her, look, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) established that if her faults and virtues are equal, he should not hate her. So how if her virtues are far greater than her faults? And how if her faults are not actually faults, but he perceives them as such? That would be even worse. A person must fear Allah in what Allah has made him a guardian over. And as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: You are a trustee over them. So how can you wrong them? Try it: be lenient with her, treat her with the best manner, ask her for what you ask of her in companionship, and see how happy life can be. This is from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in this great gathering, a sign of the importance of this matter, and that it is part of the social and family reform that a person must consider. And his saying: It is possible that the meaning is that they should not welcome a guest you dislike, because a guest is honored by being seated on the mats. And if she brings into your house someone you dislike, you may strike her. It is also possible that the meaning is deeper than this, and that the intended meaning of "mats" is the private mats, which are the sleeping mats. And if they allow someone you dislike to lie on your sleeping mats, strike them, because sleeping mats are generally something every person dislikes anyone seeing, especially a man's mat with his family. He is never pleased for anyone to see it. On this basis, the meaning of "someone you dislike" is someone whose seeing of these mats you dislike, even if you love the person, because a person may love someone but not like them to see his private mats. Both meanings are correct. If a husband says to his wife, "Do not let so-and-so enter," even if it is her brother, it is not permissible for her to let him enter, even if it is her brother, or her father, or her son, if she has a son from another husband. She must prevent it, because the house is his house and the mat is his mat. And if the second meaning is the case, it is also so if she knows, and it is generally known, that the husband is not pleased for anyone to see his mat with his family, because it is a matter of modesty and no one likes it. If she does that, he says: meaning not severe, but a strike that achieves discipline only. Yes. Are there any questions?