Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “And there is no blame on you for what you have erred in, but [what is] what your hearts have intended…”

And it is a name that is postponed, and is a preposition and its object, which is the predicate that is advanced. In that, meaning in their supplication to other than their fathers. This means that if a person errs and supplicates to someone other than his father, he bears no sin because he erred, and error is lifted from this Ummah. In his statement: The author says, “In that” “so it appears as if he specified the verse”. The correct view is that it is general, because the criterion is the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause. If the cause is a person’s supplication to other than his father, it does not necessitate specifying this general ruling with this particular issue. This is because the criterion is the established rule that the criterion is the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause. This rule has evidence from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. From the Qur’an is the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Al-Mujadilah 1:2]. So the cause is specific, but the ruling is general. Likewise in the Sunnah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saw a man on a journey who had a canopy over him and was surrounded by a crowd of people, so he said: They said, “He is fasting.” He said: However, here, in the hadith I mentioned, regarding his statement: If we say that the criterion is the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause, it becomes problematic that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to fast on a journey, as in the hadith of Abu al-Darda’ ... So how do we answer regarding this hadith? Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) not do a righteous deed? No, we say, as Ibn Daqiq al-Eid pointed out regarding this issue: “The criterion is the generality of the wording, but the meaning for which this formulation was revealed must be considered”. What is the meaning? It is hardship. So we say the criterion is the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause, meaning that this ruling is not restricted to this specific man, but it is general for all people. However, it is necessary to consider the meaning for which this general formulation was revealed, which is hardship. So we say that fasting on a journey is not a righteous deed if it leads to such a state. This is very clear. Does this depart from the rule that the criterion is the generality of the wording? No, because if the ruling were restricted to the specific man, it would depart from the rule. But since it was not restricted, we say it is general for everyone who fasts and is afflicted with the same hardship as this man. So the hadith does not depart from the rule. Is that so, Khalid? What did you say? So the saying of Allah the Exalted: is not restricted to one who supplicated to a man other than his father in error, but it is general. This great rule in the Islamic Shari'ah will, if Allah wills, have its resulting benefits explained later. Then his statement: Its apparent meaning is generality in both what is commanded and what is prohibited. But whoever reflects on the texts finds that this is specific to prohibitions only. A person bears no blame for what he erred in regarding prohibitions. As for what is commanded, he bears no blame for what he erred in, but if his error invalidates the validity of the commanded act, it must be repeated in a correct manner. Take note of this. Here, regarding prohibitions, he bears no blame, no accountability, and no effect. But regarding what is commanded, he bears no blame for what he erred in, except that if this error invalidates the validity of the commanded act, it is obligatory to repeat the commanded act in a correct manner. Look at the Bedouin man who prayed without tranquility. Was it in error or intentionally? In error, because he was ignorant. He said: “And by Him who sent you with the truth, I do not know how to do anything other than this, so teach me”. Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) leave him or order him to repeat the prayer? He ordered him to repeat the prayer. Therefore, we say that he bears no sin in his first prayer in which he neglected the obligatory tranquility because he was ignorant, but he must perform the worship in a correct manner. Likewise, if someone neglects an obligatory act of Hajj out of ignorance, he bears no sin, but he must repeat that obligatory act if it can be made up. If it cannot be made up, he must offer its substitute, according to the majority of scholars, which is a fidyah (ransom payment) that he slaughters in Makkah and distributes to the poor. Pay attention to this. And his statement: This is one of the formulations of generality that includes everything in which error occurred. Is there something like this with you? It is after the prohibition. As for before the prohibition, a person is not held accountable for it because the ruling has not yet been established. For this reason, Allah the Exalted said: [Al-Nisa:22] [Al-Nisa:23]. Because before the establishment and legal confirmation of the ruling, the original state is innocence, which is what the jurists call the presumption of original permissibility. And his statement: Because the criterion is the heart, as it is the one that directs the limbs. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Is the heart this piece of flesh, or is the intended meaning the thinking intellect, whose location is this piece of flesh? The latter. But where is the location of the intellect? The correct view is that it is the heart, because Allah said in the Qur’an: [Al-Hajj:46]. So He placed the intellect in the heart. For this reason, Imam Ahmad said that the intellect is in the heart and has a connection to the brain. But I have seen a statement by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that is closer to reality and to modern medicine, stating that the origin of thinking is in the brain, so it is the thinking organ.