The benefits derived from the noble verse.

The noble verse contains several benefits. Among them is the virtue of faith, which is indicated by Allah’s (Mighty and Majestic) addressing the believers. Another benefit is the importance of what is mentioned after this address, because there is a difference in speech between saying “do such and such” and saying “O so-and-so, do such and such.” Which is more emphatic? The second is more emphatic. Thus, it highlights the importance of what is mentioned after this address. Another benefit of the noble verse is the obligation to fulfill contracts, based on His saying: . The default ruling regarding a command is obligation, especially when it concerns the rights of others. A contract concerns the rights of others because it is an agreement between you and the other party. Therefore, the command to fulfill it is an obligation. Another benefit is that all contracts are lawful. The evidence for this is that Allah commanded them, and Allah the Exalted commanded their fulfillment, and Allah the Exalted never commands the fulfillment of obscenity. However, this is not absolute, as what the Shari'ah has forbidden is excluded, such as sales involving excessive uncertainty (gharar), sales of unborn offspring, sales involving usury (riba), gambling, and the like. Another benefit is that contracts are established by what indicates them, whether through speech, action, gesture, or writing. Where is this benefit derived from? From the fact that Allah used the general term for contract. Therefore, whatever becomes a contract among people is a contract. Many issues branch out from this, including the permissibility of sales by implication (al-mu'arah). Do you know what al-mu'arah is? Al-mu'arah is when a person goes to the baker, and the bread is advertised for one riyal, so he places the riyal in the coin slot and takes the bread. What kind of sale is this? It is a sale by implication. There is no explicit contract, no explicit buying or selling, but it is by implication, and people have recognized it as a contract. Similarly, riding in buses is included. A person enters, meaning the bus door is open, he enters, and pays the fare to the person at the door without using a specific formula for the lease. This is also a lease by implication. Another example is that marriage is established by what indicates it, and it does not require the specific word “I have married you”. If a man says, “I have given you my daughter in marriage,” and the other says, “I accept,” is the contract valid or not? It is valid. Yes, it is valid, because this is the known custom, and the wording in the hadith of the woman who offered herself in marriage, narrated by al-Bukhari, is: . Another benefit of this verse is the obligation to fulfill the conditions stipulated in the contract. This means that if two men enter into a sales contract or other agreement and stipulate certain conditions, the default ruling is the obligation to fulfill the condition. This is because His saying: includes fulfilling the contract itself and its attributes, which are its conditions. In reality, the conditions in a contract are attributes of the contract, and the command to fulfill the contract is a command to fulfill it and the attributes it contains. If the two contracting parties stipulate a condition and a dispute arises over whether this condition is valid or not, who is correct? The correct view is with the one who says it is valid, until the one who objects provides evidence for the prohibition. Based on this, we allow people to proceed with their transactions until we are certain that they violate the Shari'ah. So, what is the default ruling in transactions? The default ruling is that they proceed as they are, until evidence is presented that they are forbidden. Does this include fulfilling pledges? Yes, because a pledge is a contract. A pledge is a contract, as stated in another verse: . Does this include promises? If I tell a person, “I will pass by you tomorrow at such and such time,” is it obligatory for you to fulfill it? The correct view is yes, it is obligatory for you to fulfill it, because a promise is a pledge, and because breaking a promise is a characteristic of the hypocrites. When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The hypocrite, when he promises, breaks his promise,” he did not intend to limit this to the characteristics of hypocrites, but rather he wanted us to avoid and beware of it. For this reason, the stronger view is that fulfilling a promise is obligatory, and it is not permissible for a person to break a promise except for a valid Shari'ah excuse. It is astonishing that some people, deceived by the morals of disbelieving nations, tell their companion that it is an “English promise,” even though disbelievers are the furthest people from fulfilling pledges. He should have said it is a “believer’s promise,” because the believer is the one who does not break a promise except for a valid Shari'ah excuse. Another benefit of the noble verse is that all livestock are lawful, based on His saying: . What about animals other than livestock? Are they lawful or not? We say they are lawful, but not by this verse, rather by His saying: . Therefore, if we are in doubt about whether something is lawful or forbidden, the default ruling is that it is lawful. If someone forbids it, we say, “Bring the evidence,” otherwise it is lawful. If we are in doubt about whether something lawful was slaughtered according to Shari'ah or not, what is the default ruling? The default ruling is that it was not slaughtered according to Shari'ah, because slaughter is an action that must be verified. So, if we find, for example, a part of a sheep and we do not know if it was slaughtered or not, we say it is not lawful, because the default ruling is the absence of slaughter, unless there is an apparent indication that overrides this default. If there is an apparent indication that overrides the default, we follow it. For example, if we find a sheep in a Muslim’s house, we do not know if it was slaughtered or not. The default ruling is that it is not lawful, but here there is an apparent indication that overrides the default, which is that its presence among Muslim houses indicates that it was slaughtered. Thus, this apparent indication is predominant or considered predominant over the default. For this reason, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said that if a person finds a slaughtered sheep in a country where most of its people are those whose slaughter is lawful, then it is lawful, even though there is a possibility that the one who slaughtered it is not one whose slaughter is lawful, but the predominant likelihood is that it is. Another benefit of the verse is referring to something mentioned or to be mentioned. Where is this derived from? From His saying: . This is a reference to what will be mentioned. The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) used this in their writings, and the one who used it most frequently among those we have seen is Ibn Hajar. Ibn Hajar referred to things frequently, and yet sometimes he forgot to fulfill the reference, may Allah have mercy on him. It is permissible to refer to something mentioned or to be mentioned, as he said: . Another benefit of this noble verse is that the default ruling for livestock is lawfulness, as we established earlier. The evidence for this is the exception from that ruling: “I have made lawful to you, except...” The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said that an exception is the standard for generality. Standard means measure. If you find something with an exception, know that the ruling is general, because when this individual is excluded from the individuals, it is known that the ruling covers all individuals. Another benefit of this noble verse is that hunting is not lawful for one in the state of ihram, based on His saying: . Nor is it lawful for one who is in the Sacred Precinct (Haram), because one who is in the Haram has entered a prohibited environment, where hunting is forbidden, so hunting is forbidden for him. But if he hunts a lawful animal, meaning he drains its blood, mentions the name of Allah, and kills it, is it lawful or not? It is not lawful. Yes? Look at the verse: . Yes, it is not lawful, because it says “not in a state of ihram.” This indicates that if they kill it, it is forbidden, so they are not allowed to make it lawful for themselves. For this reason, Allah described hunting as killing, and He said in another verse: . It is known that He does not intend killing other than by lawful hunting, because killing other than by lawful hunting is forbidden, whether the person is in a state of ihram or not. But because hunting in a state of ihram is forbidden, this hunting becomes like killing, so the hunted animal is forbidden. Another benefit of the noble verse is the exaltation of the state of ihram, and that hunting is forbidden for one in ihram so that he does not forget the ihram while pursuing the hunt. It is known now among hunters that they are passionate about it, and it takes hold of their hearts and minds, so you see the hunter chasing the prey, with pebbles bleeding his feet and thorns tearing them, yet he does not care. If hunting were made lawful for one in ihram, he would be distracted from his ihram by it. Another benefit of the noble verse is affirming that the ruling belongs to Allah, based on His saying: .
Another benefit of the verse is affirming that will belongs to Allah, in His saying: . Another benefit of the verse is the indication that it is not permissible for a person to object to the rulings of the Shari'ah. Why? Because Allah concluded it with His saying: . He concluded the verse, after mentioning types of rulings, by saying: .