Benefits of the Hadith (When the Day of Khaybar came, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered Abu Talhah . . . ).

The Shaykh : In this hadith, there are benefits, among which is: that it is recommended to announce the legal rulings in the strongest way that achieves notification. The reason is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered Abu Talhah to announce this legal ruling because of the elevation of his voice.
And among them is: that using a loudspeaker to convey the sermon to the worshippers, and using broadcasting, which is wider and more widespread, are matters for which the Sunnah has brought similar precedents. This serves as a refutation of those who deny this and call it a religious innovation because it was not known in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family).
And among them is: the permissibility of combining the name of Allah and the name of the Messenger with the conjunction "and" in legal rulings, based on his saying: and he did not say "then His Messenger." The reason for this is that the prohibition of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is the prohibition of Allah, as Allah the Exalted said: and Allah the Exalted said: Since the ruling issued by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is like the ruling issued by Allah, it is correct to combine the name of Allah with the name of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) with "and." If someone asks, "Where did Allah prohibit this, when Allah said to His Prophet: The three types and donkeys are not among them, so where did Allah prohibit them?" The answer is that the verse is in Surat al-An'am, and Surat al-An'am is a Meccan surah, while the hadith is from Khaybar after the migration. The verse does not say "I will not find in what has been revealed to me," but if the wording of the verse were "I will not find," then this hadith would be in conflict with it. But the verse is and it did not say "in what is revealed to me." The verse was revealed, and during the time of its revelation, nothing was forbidden except these, what? The three types. There is no conflict, absolutely no conflict between it and the hadith, nor between it and the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of every fanged beast of prey and every taloned bird. The verse is clear, and with the slightest reflection, it becomes apparent to you that there is no need to bring it up to oppose this hadith and its like. If someone says, "We accept that there is no conflict between the verse and the hadith, but where is the prohibition of Allah for the Messenger?" We say, who informed us that Allah prohibited it?
The student: The Messenger.

The Shaykh : The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). It is obligatory for us to believe in that and to say that Allah prohibited the meat of domestic donkeys. As for in which text that was, it is sufficient that the narrator for us is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and there is no need for us to be overly strict and ask, "Where? And where is the revelation?" and the like. If someone asks, "How do you reconcile this hadith: with the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) condemnation of the orator who said: "And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has succeeded, and whoever disobeys them has gone astray" Here he said "they prohibit you," combining them in a single pronoun? Here the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, in what he ordered Abu Talhah to say, "they prohibit you," and the orator said: So what is the answer? We say the answer is from several angles. The first angle: that there is a difference between the two formulations, the formulation of the hadith and the formulation of the orator. The formulation of the hadith, "they prohibit you," is a predicate for a subject consisting of two conjoined items, one conjoined and the other conjoined to. If it is a predicate about two, one conjoined and the other conjoined to, it becomes as if it is composed of two. This is one point. As for the orator, he says, "Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has succeeded, and whoever disobeys them has gone astray." This is an independent sentence, not a predicate for the first sentence nor an answer to a condition, so it is independent. And if it is independent, it must be independent in the wording of the dual, each one individually, so he should say, "And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has gone astray." Is the difference clear or not? The difference is clear in terms of structure. "Indeed Allah and His Messenger prohibit you" is one sentence or two?
The student: One.

The Shaykh : One sentence, "they prohibit you," which is the one in which the pronoun is combined, is a predicate for "indeed," so the sentence is one, and it is a predicate for two, each mentioned individually. So it is one sentence. In the orator's phrase, "Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has succeeded, and whoever disobeys them has gone astray," a new sentence came, so it became as if it was separated from the first. So his coming with the combined pronoun for two is considered an error, and eloquence would be to say, "And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger." So the difference is apparent between the two formulations.
Second: that the station of the sermon should be with detail and elaboration, and extreme brevity is contrary to clarity in the sermon. As for this, it is an explanation of a ruling, which is a sermon, and explaining a ruling may be eloquence, what? To be brief in it. The third answer: that it is far from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) in his right and his speech to make a partner for Allah. As for the created being, if he combines the name of Allah and the name of another with "and," he may believe that they are equal. But this answer is weak, because the orator combined them with, what? With "and," so this cannot be relied upon.
And the fourth: that it was said that the orator's sermon should be clear. If he says, "Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has succeeded, and whoever disobeys them has gone astray," the listener may assume that going astray does not occur except by disobeying Allah and His Messenger, meaning except by what has come in a prohibition in the Book and, what? And the Sunnah. And this is a mistake. But in my opinion, the closest of the answers is the first, which is the difference between the two formulations, followed by the second, that the station of the sermon requires elaboration.
And among the benefits of this hadith: that the original ruling in prohibition is prohibition, based on his saying: Then he explained that it is an abomination, and an abomination is forbidden.
And among the benefits of this hadith: that when "meat" is mentioned generally, it includes all parts of the body, because by agreement and consensus, donkeys are forbidden, whether they are meat, i.e., flesh as it is known, or liver, or stomach, or intestines. All of them are called meat in the Shari'ah.
And among the benefits of this hadith: the permissibility of the meat of wild donkeys. Where is this taken from? It is taken from the qualifier "domestic." Is the prohibition because people need their backs to ride on them and carry loads, so if they were permitted, it would be a burden on people? Or is the prohibition because they are impure? The second, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and because the first cause is refuted. People are in greater and more need of the backs of camels, and yet camels are permissible. People are in greater need of cattle for plowing than of donkeys, and yet they are permissible. The correct view is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) explained. As for the fear that it would burden people with their backs, this is not correct.
Among the benefits of this hadith: that every abomination is forbidden, because... Samir? Because?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Because it is an abomination. That is all. So every abomination is forbidden, and this is like the noble verse So we take from this, my brothers, "Every impure thing is forbidden" Is that clear? Good.
And among the benefits of this hadith: that all parts of donkeys are impure: their urine, their dung, their saliva, their sweat, whatever comes out of their body, whether pus or otherwise, due to the generality of his saying: And this is the well-known view in the school of thought, the Hanbali school, even if a donkey drinks from water and it is little, the water becomes impure even if it does not change. But this is opposed by the fact that the statement "everything that touches donkeys is impure" is opposed by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said about the cat that it is not impure, and he explained that it is among those that go around. It is known that the going around of donkeys among people is more than the going around of cats, and the cause is established in the cat and necessitates purification, and so is the cause in donkeys. And this view is the correct one. And what indicates this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions used to ride donkeys, and a rider of a donkey is not free from moisture, either sweat from him or from the donkey, or being hit by rainwater or otherwise. Then donkeys drink and shake their heads after drinking, and the water splashes on those around them. And this is undoubtedly a hardship, especially for those who practice it frequently. And religion does not come with hardship; rather, it is the removal of hardship and difficulty. And this view is the stronger view that their saliva, and what comes out of their nose, and what comes out of their eyes of tears, and their sweat, all of it is pure, because these donkeys are among those that go around them. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said about the cat:
The author limited himself to this portion of the hadith and did not mention that they began slaughtering them, that the pots were boiling in them, and that the Messenger ordered the pots to be overturned and broken. However, they asked if they could wash them, so he said: The remainder of this hadith indicates that continuing in what has been established as forbidden is forbidden, even if it was permissible at the beginning. Once prohibition is established, continuing is forbidden. It is known now that there is nothing that is lawful at first and then becomes forbidden. However, this principle applies if a person learns of the prohibition of something while he is engaged in it. Is it obligatory for him to discontinue it immediately? The answer is yes. For example, if a person is wearing silk, thinking that wearing silk is lawful, and then he is told that wearing silk is forbidden, he must remove it immediately. But of course, if he has a garment with which to cover his awrah (nakedness), otherwise he should wait until he finds a garment. Likewise, if he is told that the drink he is currently consuming is forbidden, such as some beverages that people think are lawful but are actually forbidden in countries other than ours. In our country, praise be to Allah, only tested items are imported. Is it time for questions?