Discussion of Prohibition in Usul al-Fiqh
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : His statement: "prohibited". Prohibition is the demand for abstention in a manner of superiority, using a specific form. Pay attention: prohibition is the demand for abstention in a manner of superiority, using a specific form. So, when we say "demand," this excludes the report (khabar), for a report is not a demand, unless it is by its meaning based on other evidence.
Second: The demand for abstention excludes the command (amr), because a command is a demand for action, not a demand for abstention. And when we say "in a manner of superiority," this excludes supplication (du'a') and entreaty (iltimas). So, when a person says, "Our Lord, do not punish us," we cannot say that it is a prohibition, because did the one who said "Our Lord, do not punish us" say it in a manner of superiority? No, the opposite; he said it in a manner of humility and seeking compassion. It also excludes entreaty. Entreaty is when a person says to his companion, or someone of his rank or close to him, "Do not do it." For example, I saw a person messing around, so I said, "My brother, do not mess around." You have no authority over him, because if you say "do not mess around" and his messing around is slight, it may increase, because you do not have authority. But you say "do not mess around" as an entreaty.
Now, supplication and entreaty are excluded. "In a specific form"—what is this form? The form of prohibition is one, and it is the present tense verb accompanied by the prohibitive particle "la." Is there anything else?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, it is the present tense verb accompanied by the prohibitive particle "la." You say "do not do this," and this is a prohibition. As for what indicates abstention in the form of a command, it is a command, such as His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Hajj 22:30] There is no doubt that this is a prohibition against practicing the abomination of idols, but it is not called a prohibition technically. Why? Because it is not in the form of prohibition, but rather a command. "Avoid" is a demand for abstention in a manner of superiority, and this is the command. So, is the prohibition Adam?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Come on, complete it.
The student: It is the demand for abstention in a manner of superiority, using a specific form.
The Shaykh : What is the form?
The student: The form is "do not do."
The Shaykh : "Do not do," okay. So, if a Companion said, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited," do we treat it as the explicit form, or do we say this is in the ruling of the explicit form?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, yes. Because the word "prohibited" is not like the word "do not do." A person might understand from someone he spoke with that he prohibited, when he did not prohibit. But because of our trust in the Companions and our trust in their knowledge of the speech of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), through the linguistic indicators and the contextual indicators, it makes us certain that the prohibition, even if it comes with the word "prohibited" or "he was prohibiting," is like the explicit prohibition. So, if someone says: A person might understand something that is not a prohibition as a prohibition? We say, this is regarding the Companions, what is it?
The student: Impossible.
The Shaykh : Impossible and not applicable, because the Companions are the most knowledgeable people about the forms of prohibition and the most knowledgeable people about the intent of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And it is not possible for their trustworthiness to allow them to use this term without understanding that the prohibition is explicit. Okay, so if someone says: If you say this, why did they not convey the exact wording of the Messenger, which is "a man does not perform ghusl because of a woman"? We say, perhaps he forgot, they forgot the wording, so they reported it by what?
The student: By meaning.
The Shaykh : By meaning, and this is a very clear answer. Otherwise, someone might say: So why did they express it with "prohibited" or express the command with "command" and not come with the specific form? We say, perhaps a person forgets and expresses what he knew with certainty.
Second: The demand for abstention excludes the command (amr), because a command is a demand for action, not a demand for abstention. And when we say "in a manner of superiority," this excludes supplication (du'a') and entreaty (iltimas). So, when a person says, "Our Lord, do not punish us," we cannot say that it is a prohibition, because did the one who said "Our Lord, do not punish us" say it in a manner of superiority? No, the opposite; he said it in a manner of humility and seeking compassion. It also excludes entreaty. Entreaty is when a person says to his companion, or someone of his rank or close to him, "Do not do it." For example, I saw a person messing around, so I said, "My brother, do not mess around." You have no authority over him, because if you say "do not mess around" and his messing around is slight, it may increase, because you do not have authority. But you say "do not mess around" as an entreaty.
Now, supplication and entreaty are excluded. "In a specific form"—what is this form? The form of prohibition is one, and it is the present tense verb accompanied by the prohibitive particle "la." Is there anything else?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, it is the present tense verb accompanied by the prohibitive particle "la." You say "do not do this," and this is a prohibition. As for what indicates abstention in the form of a command, it is a command, such as His saying, the Exalted:
So avoid the uncleanliness of idols and avoid false statement,
فاجتنبوا الرّجس من الأوثان واجتنبوا قول الزّورThe student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Come on, complete it.
The student: It is the demand for abstention in a manner of superiority, using a specific form.
The Shaykh : What is the form?
The student: The form is "do not do."
The Shaykh : "Do not do," okay. So, if a Companion said, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited," do we treat it as the explicit form, or do we say this is in the ruling of the explicit form?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second, yes. Because the word "prohibited" is not like the word "do not do." A person might understand from someone he spoke with that he prohibited, when he did not prohibit. But because of our trust in the Companions and our trust in their knowledge of the speech of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), through the linguistic indicators and the contextual indicators, it makes us certain that the prohibition, even if it comes with the word "prohibited" or "he was prohibiting," is like the explicit prohibition. So, if someone says: A person might understand something that is not a prohibition as a prohibition? We say, this is regarding the Companions, what is it?
The student: Impossible.
The Shaykh : Impossible and not applicable, because the Companions are the most knowledgeable people about the forms of prohibition and the most knowledgeable people about the intent of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And it is not possible for their trustworthiness to allow them to use this term without understanding that the prohibition is explicit. Okay, so if someone says: If you say this, why did they not convey the exact wording of the Messenger, which is "a man does not perform ghusl because of a woman"? We say, perhaps he forgot, they forgot the wording, so they reported it by what?
The student: By meaning.
The Shaykh : By meaning, and this is a very clear answer. Otherwise, someone might say: So why did they express it with "prohibited" or express the command with "command" and not come with the specific form? We say, perhaps a person forgets and expresses what he knew with certainty.