Reading from the author's words with commentary on them: "And this wording does not include: what they were upon in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, and Allah approved in Islam
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And secondly, that "until" is for the limit, and the meaning is that it is permissible to stand at 'Arafah as people used to do. Yes.
The reader: "such as the rites of pilgrimage, and the blood money for the murdered man being one hundred, and the oath of al-qasamah, and the like".
The Shaykh : One hundred what? One hundred camels. The blood money for the murdered man is one hundred camels. And al-qasamah: al-qasamah is when a corpse is found in the land of his enemies, and the guardians of the murdered man claim that these people killed him. If they have no evidence to testify to that, al-qasamah is carried out, and it is known in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. How is al-qasamah? Al-qasamah is that it is said to the claimants, who are the guardians of the murdered man: "Swear fifty oaths against a specific person from the enemy. And if you swear that he is the killer of your murdered man, then kill him." Here, the original rule is contradicted. The original rule is that the claimant must provide evidence, and the denier must swear the oath. But here, the oath is on the claimant, and the oaths of the people of al-qasamah are in the position of evidence. Therefore, if they swear fifty oaths, they kill the one they claimed killed them. The oath was placed on the side of the claimant here because his side is stronger. What strengthened his side? The enmity between the murdered man and the enemy who was accused of killing him. In reality, the oath is not always on the side of the defendant; the oath is on the side of the stronger of the two disputants, whether he is the claimant or the defendant. For this reason, a right is established by one witness and an oath. That is, a man testifies that so-and-so stole a thousand riyals from so-and-so, and he has only one witness, and the claimant swears an oath, so he is judged in favor of the money. But he is not judged to have the hand cut off, because hudud (fixed punishments) are not established except by evidence. Yes. The important thing: do you know al-qasamah now or not? Al-qasamah is that the claimants of the killing swear against a group of people that they killed their murdered man, and there was apparent enmity between them. Yes.
The reader: "such as the rites of pilgrimage, and the blood money for the murdered man being one hundred, and the oath of al-qasamah, and the like".
The Shaykh : One hundred what? One hundred camels. The blood money for the murdered man is one hundred camels. And al-qasamah: al-qasamah is when a corpse is found in the land of his enemies, and the guardians of the murdered man claim that these people killed him. If they have no evidence to testify to that, al-qasamah is carried out, and it is known in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. How is al-qasamah? Al-qasamah is that it is said to the claimants, who are the guardians of the murdered man: "Swear fifty oaths against a specific person from the enemy. And if you swear that he is the killer of your murdered man, then kill him." Here, the original rule is contradicted. The original rule is that the claimant must provide evidence, and the denier must swear the oath. But here, the oath is on the claimant, and the oaths of the people of al-qasamah are in the position of evidence. Therefore, if they swear fifty oaths, they kill the one they claimed killed them. The oath was placed on the side of the claimant here because his side is stronger. What strengthened his side? The enmity between the murdered man and the enemy who was accused of killing him. In reality, the oath is not always on the side of the defendant; the oath is on the side of the stronger of the two disputants, whether he is the claimant or the defendant. For this reason, a right is established by one witness and an oath. That is, a man testifies that so-and-so stole a thousand riyals from so-and-so, and he has only one witness, and the claimant swears an oath, so he is judged in favor of the money. But he is not judged to have the hand cut off, because hudud (fixed punishments) are not established except by evidence. Yes. The important thing: do you know al-qasamah now or not? Al-qasamah is that the claimants of the killing swear against a group of people that they killed their murdered man, and there was apparent enmity between them. Yes.