Reading from the author's text with commentary and collation of manuscripts: "Rather, groups of jurists from among the followers of al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, and others,
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: "Rather, groups of jurists from among the followers of al-Shafi'i and Ahmad, and others, have mentioned the dislike of certain things because of their resemblance to the people of innovation, like what more than one person from both groups, including 'Abd al-Qadir, said: 'It is recommended to wear a ring on the left hand, based on the narrations, and because the opposite is the custom and emblem of the innovators.' And even if groups"
The Shaykh : Now, on the contrary, meaning that wearing a ring is not among the customs of the scholars except for one who has a need. Therefore, what we see in the issue of wearing a ring is that it is from the category of permissible things, except in the case of gold, which is forbidden. Yes.
The reader: "And even if groups from among the followers of al-Shafi'i recommended raising the tops of graves, even though the Sunnah in their view is to flatten them, they said: because that has become the emblem of the innovators. And the purpose here is not to establish the specific rulings of these issues, nor to discuss what has been said about them in terms of negation or affirmation, but rather the purpose is to clarify what was agreed upon"
The Shaykh : Raising the tops of graves and flattening them: the difference between them is that raising the top of a grave makes it like a camel's hump, meaning a pyramid whose top is smaller than its base, and flattening them makes them like a flat surface, level. And the correct view is that raising the top is better. Yes.
The reader: "But rather the purpose is to clarify what the scholars agreed upon regarding the dislike of resembling those who are not from the people of Islam. And the scholars may hesitate in some of this rule"
The Shaykh : In some of its branches.
The reader: Is it a correction, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed
The reader: "And the scholars may hesitate in some branches of this rule due to conflicting evidence in them, or because some of them do not believe that a case falls under this rule. For example, what al-Athram narrated: 'I heard Abu 'Abdullah being asked about wearing silk in war, and he said: "I hope there is no harm in it." He said: 'And I heard Abu 'Abdullah being asked about the belt and the ornamentation on it, and he said: "As for the belt, some people disliked it, saying it is from the attire of the non-Arabs, and they used to gird their turbans."'"
The Shaykh : Repeat.
The reader: "And they used to gird their turbans"
The Shaykh : Like this with you?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Like this with you? It seems to me that they are strict; he did not indicate the manuscript.
The student: No, O Shaykh, he did not indicate it.
The Shaykh : I do not know what... Yes.
The reader: "And this is where he suspended the ruling because there is a benefit in the belt that counteracts the resemblance in it, and it was narrated from some of the Salaf that he used to wear a belt, so for this reason he reported the speech of others and held back. And like this: does he make it his own ruling if he is asked about an issue and he reports the answer of another without following it with agreement or disagreement? There are two positions for his followers: The first is: Yes, because if he did not agree with it, he would not have answered the questioner, because he only asked him for his opinion, not to report the schools of thought of people to him. And the second is: It is not made his own ruling merely by that, because he only reported it, and mere reporting does not indicate agreement."
The Shaykh : It appears, and Allah knows best, that in such a case, it is not said that he agreed or disagreed, because if he had agreed, he would have clarified his opinion and said, for example, "This is permissible, and so-and-so said it." And if he had disagreed, he would have said, "So-and-so said it, but I do not see it." So it appears that in such a case, it is not said that he agreed or that he disagreed, but rather it is said that he is withholding, that he is withholding, but he attributed the matter to another out of scrupulousness, because it is possible that what the other person said is correct, so he mentions it, may Allah have mercy on him, from the perspective of scrupulousness. And this is a middle ground between the two opinions: the opinion that it is agreement and the opinion that it is disagreement. It is said: He is not explicit in disagreement, nor what in agreement, but rather he reported it on the basis of scrupulousness due to the possibility that it is correct. Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, on the contrary, meaning that wearing a ring is not among the customs of the scholars except for one who has a need. Therefore, what we see in the issue of wearing a ring is that it is from the category of permissible things, except in the case of gold, which is forbidden. Yes.
The reader: "And even if groups from among the followers of al-Shafi'i recommended raising the tops of graves, even though the Sunnah in their view is to flatten them, they said: because that has become the emblem of the innovators. And the purpose here is not to establish the specific rulings of these issues, nor to discuss what has been said about them in terms of negation or affirmation, but rather the purpose is to clarify what was agreed upon"
The Shaykh : Raising the tops of graves and flattening them: the difference between them is that raising the top of a grave makes it like a camel's hump, meaning a pyramid whose top is smaller than its base, and flattening them makes them like a flat surface, level. And the correct view is that raising the top is better. Yes.
The reader: "But rather the purpose is to clarify what the scholars agreed upon regarding the dislike of resembling those who are not from the people of Islam. And the scholars may hesitate in some of this rule"
The Shaykh : In some of its branches.
The reader: Is it a correction, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed
The reader: "And the scholars may hesitate in some branches of this rule due to conflicting evidence in them, or because some of them do not believe that a case falls under this rule. For example, what al-Athram narrated: 'I heard Abu 'Abdullah being asked about wearing silk in war, and he said: "I hope there is no harm in it." He said: 'And I heard Abu 'Abdullah being asked about the belt and the ornamentation on it, and he said: "As for the belt, some people disliked it, saying it is from the attire of the non-Arabs, and they used to gird their turbans."'"
The Shaykh : Repeat.
The reader: "And they used to gird their turbans"
The Shaykh : Like this with you?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Like this with you? It seems to me that they are strict; he did not indicate the manuscript.
The student: No, O Shaykh, he did not indicate it.
The Shaykh : I do not know what... Yes.
The reader: "And this is where he suspended the ruling because there is a benefit in the belt that counteracts the resemblance in it, and it was narrated from some of the Salaf that he used to wear a belt, so for this reason he reported the speech of others and held back. And like this: does he make it his own ruling if he is asked about an issue and he reports the answer of another without following it with agreement or disagreement? There are two positions for his followers: The first is: Yes, because if he did not agree with it, he would not have answered the questioner, because he only asked him for his opinion, not to report the schools of thought of people to him. And the second is: It is not made his own ruling merely by that, because he only reported it, and mere reporting does not indicate agreement."
The Shaykh : It appears, and Allah knows best, that in such a case, it is not said that he agreed or disagreed, because if he had agreed, he would have clarified his opinion and said, for example, "This is permissible, and so-and-so said it." And if he had disagreed, he would have said, "So-and-so said it, but I do not see it." So it appears that in such a case, it is not said that he agreed or that he disagreed, but rather it is said that he is withholding, that he is withholding, but he attributed the matter to another out of scrupulousness, because it is possible that what the other person said is correct, so he mentions it, may Allah have mercy on him, from the perspective of scrupulousness. And this is a middle ground between the two opinions: the opinion that it is agreement and the opinion that it is disagreement. It is said: He is not explicit in disagreement, nor what in agreement, but rather he reported it on the basis of scrupulousness due to the possibility that it is correct. Yes.