The newly derived benefits from the aforementioned noble verse.

I seek refuge in Allah from Satan, the accursed. Before we begin the exegesis of this verse, I think we have some benefits remaining? From where? Did we take the benefits of the verse before it? Allah the Exalted said: We mentioned previously that has two recitations: with the sad letter kasrah and with the sad letter fathah, as a present active participle, and as a present passive participle. And I think I forgot to alert you? Among the benefits of this noble verse: that making things lawful and making them forbidden belongs to Allah Mighty and Majestic; no one has the right to make something lawful or forbidden. This is based on His saying: This is by the consensus of the Muslims, to the extent that Allah the Exalted said: We have already passed through what clarifies the ruling on making things lawful and forbidden, and we said that the original ruling in acts of worship is prohibition and prevention except with evidence, and the original ruling in other matters is permissibility. The discussion of the jurists regarding this topic, and what is the original state of things before the Shari'ah, and the like of all that, is speech that has no benefit except to blacken what was white of the pages, because it is speculative speech with no benefit. This is because we have from the speech of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger what suffices us from all the investigations they mentioned and lengthened. We say two important rules: The original ruling in acts of worship is prevention except with evidence; prevention is the original state both in essence and description except with evidence. And the original ruling in other than acts of worship, absolutely, whether customs, transactions, objects, benefits, or otherwise, what is the original ruling in them? Permissibility, except what evidence indicates to be forbidden. And we mentioned the evidence for this previously, and there is no need to repeat it. Among the benefits of this noble verse: that everything Allah the Exalted has made lawful is good. But is this good lawful for everyone? The answer: If it entails harm to some people, it is forbidden, even if it is good. So if it is said to a person, for example: "If you eat this type of food, it will harm you," it becomes forbidden for him, not because it is bad, but because it is harmful to this specific person. Among the benefits of this noble verse: that the food of the Jews and Christians is lawful for us, based on His saying: . Is it the same for others? The answer: No. And he who said that His saying: is a title, is mistaken. Rather, we say it is a description, and a description excludes what does not possess that attribute. For example, Did you make it a present passive participle? And the food of those given the Scripture. And if you make it a present passive participle, it becomes a derived attribute, so it is not a title as was said, because a title is known to have no concept. For example, if I say to you: "Honor Zayd," it does not mean you do not honor others, because this is a title. But if I say: "Honor the one who exercises independent legal reasoning," what is this? This is a description. This is a description that excludes one who is not a mujtahid. From the scholars, especially the later ones, who said is a title and not a description, did so in order to plead for the permissibility of the food of other than the Jews and Christians. Because a title, as is known to the jurists, has no concept. A title has no concept, and you have known the example. What is its example? "Honor Zayd" does not mean that you do not honor others. But "Honor the one who exercises independent legal reasoning" means you do not honor the one who does not... Among the benefits of this noble verse: the permissibility of the food of those given the Scripture, who are the Jews and Christians. And among the benefits of the noble verse: that the slaughter of other than them is not lawful, such as the Zoroastrians, polytheists, communists, and those similar to them. Where do we take this from? From the concept of . And among the benefits of the verse: the wisdom of Allah Mighty and Majestic in making the food of those given the Scripture lawful. Because those given the Scripture have heavenly knowledge, so they are among the people closest to accepting the Islamic Shari'ah. Undoubtedly, the conditions of the People of the Book changed after the revelation of the Noble Qur'an. They changed greatly, so there were great, fierce wars between the Muslims and the Jews, and between the Muslims and the Christians, which led to the arrogance of these Jews and Christians and their refusal to accept what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) brought. And among the benefits of this noble verse: that what the People of the Book consider slaughtered is slaughtered. Because if they consider it slaughtered, it becomes food. The word "slaughtered" here does not mean intelligent; the intended meaning of "slaughtered" is that which has been ritually slaughtered. So what they consider ritually slaughtered is food for them. Based on this, it is lawful from their food what they invoked the name of other than Allah upon. Meaning, if a Christian says in the name of Christ, and the Jews say in the name of Uzayr, or the like of that, the slaughter is lawful because they believe this is food, and Allah Mighty and Majestic was general, saying: . And from that also, what they consider slaughtered from that which is killed without the flow of blood, by striking and the like of it, is lawful. What is "that which is killed without the flow of blood"? That which is killed by striking and the like of it; it is lawful. Because Allah said: So what they consider food that is ritually slaughtered and they eat, it is lawful. If someone asks: Did anyone go to this opinion? We say: As for what the name of Christ was invoked upon, some of the Salaf, from the Companions and other than the Companions, went to this opinion. They said that this does not return to the essence of the one who slaughtered or to its badness, but it returns to the intention. And we do not care about his intention. As for the second, which is that if the slaughtered one among them is what died, even by strangulation, they said that the verse is general. But we have not known that anyone from the Salaf said this, except that the later scholars who said this said: If the Salaf permitted what the name of other than Allah was invoked upon—meaning some of the Salaf—then this is like it. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made invoking the name of Allah upon the slaughter and the flow of blood two companions; he made them two companions in one ruling, saying: But the majority of scholars say: This generality in must be restricted. It must be restricted by His saying: and His saying: And it is also restricted by the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): If these are two restrictions for the generality of the permissibility of the slaughter of a Muslim, then their restriction for the permissibility of the slaughter of a non-Muslim is even more so. If a Muslim, for example, strangles a sheep, it becomes forbidden, so the same applies to a person from the People of the Book. It is not possible that the slaughter of a person from the People of the Book is better than the slaughter of a Muslim. And this is what the majority are upon, the majority of scholars, and it is the correct opinion. So the correct opinion is that His saying: even if it is general, it must be restricted by what? By what has come of restricting it by invoking the name of Allah upon the slaughter and the flow of blood. But if a slaughter comes to us from a Jew or a Christian and we do not know if he invoked the name of Allah upon it or not, if he strangled it then cut its throat or not, what is the original ruling? The original ruling is permissibility. The original ruling is permissibility, because it is established in Sahih al-Bukhari from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): Meaning they had recently embraced Islam, and a Muslim who has recently embraced Islam may have much of Islam hidden from him. And yet he said what? He said: "You invoke the name, and eat." The author of al-Muntaqa (may Allah have mercy on him) said: It is taken from this that every action that comes from its people, the original ruling in it is permissibility, and there is no contradiction. Because if we were obligated to investigate, then even what comes in our markets from what Muslims slaughtered, we would have to ask: Did the one who slaughter invoke the name or not? Did he cut the windpipe or not? Does he pray or not? And the like of that. And if we were obligated to investigate, then if a man sold us a garment, we would say: Come, where did you acquire it? Correct? Because of the possibility that it was stolen. If he said: I acquired it from so-and-so, then go to so-and-so and say: Come, where did you acquire it? Because of the possibility that so-and-so stole it, until we reach the tree from which it was woven. And this is something that cannot be investigated. In any case, the original ruling in the action that occurs from its people is permissibility. If a claimant claims that the intended meaning of His saying: is what they cooked, such as bread and stew, and the like of that, is it accepted? No. Why? Because this is lawful from the People of the Book and other than them by consensus. This is lawful by consensus, even if a Zoroastrian cooked bread for us, we would eat it. And that is because the things that are made lawful are divided into two categories. The first: what does not require the action of an actor for its permissibility, and this is lawful from the People of the Book and other than the People of the Book. The second: what requires the action of an actor for its permissibility, and this is forbidden from other than the People of the Book. These are two categories, and I mentioned that in order to correct what I previously said that it is three categories, and the truth is that it is two categories. The first: what its permissibility does not depend on the action of an actor. What is it like? Slaughter, or other than slaughter? Good. Fish? What do you say? Does it require the action of an actor for its permissibility? No, no? Are you sure? Do you agree with this? Yes. If you find a dead fish on the shore of the sea, all of it has nothing in it, this is lawful, whether it is the food of the People of the Book or other than the People of the Book. And there is no problem in this. The problem is in the food that requires the action of the actor for its permissibility, which is the animal that requires ritual slaughter. And this is what is intended by the verse. And among the benefits of this noble verse: that there is no harm in us feeding the People of the Book and them feeding us, based on His saying: And at that time we ask: Is it permissible to exchange gifts between us and the People of the Book? The answer: Yes, it is permissible. Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted their gifts, as the woman in Khaybar gifted him the poisoned sheep. Because this woman asked: What does Muhammad like? They said: He likes the foreleg of the sheep. So she filled the foreleg with poison and gifted it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not know the unseen; he ate it, and those with him. Of those who ate with him, some died. As for him (peace and blessings be upon him), the vein was affected, but by the permission of Allah, the poison did not affect him with anything. But he said in his illness of death, as Aisha narrated from him: The abhara is a known vein; if it is cut, the person dies. For this reason, al-Zuhri and others said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) died a martyr, killed by whom? Killed by the Jews. The important thing is that the fact that their food is lawful for us and our food is lawful for them indicates the permissibility of exchanging gifts between us and the People of the Book, especially if we hope for their Islam, or if we want to show them that Islam is the religion of peace, and that Islam was not revealed by Allah Mighty and Majestic to impose on people that they must submit, but Allah imposed on humanity that His word be the highest, whether by Islam or by jizyah. And for that reason, if a disbeliever says that he will offer jizyah and remain on his religion, we say: No, you must submit? No, absolutely not. We say: Remain on your religion, and we accept the jizyah. And of course, when does the payment of jizyah occur? When we Muslims have the upper hand, and not as our condition is today. Our condition today—may Allah have mercy on our weakness—is the opposite of that. The upper hand is for other than us, because we did not establish the religion of Allah in the proper way. If we had established the religion of Allah in the proper way, the religion of Allah would have had to appear over all religions Why? But who among us, except whom Allah wills, wants this? Most people now are against others, and I mean the Muslims also, are against that. In the lands of the Muslims, there is shirk (associating partners with Allah) that if the Messenger were alive, he would fight them for it. And in them, there is exaggeration regarding righteous people or other than righteous people. And the things are not hidden from many of you. In any case, the religion of Islam is the religion of peace in reality. But with that, it is the religion of determination, strength, and caution from the enemies and their plots, stratagems, and treachery. And among the benefits of this noble verse: the permissibility of the chaste women from the People of the Book, like the permissibility of the chaste women from the Muslims. Because Allah said: And this, in reality, someone might say: There is no place for this, because this is a known matter. But He, Glorified and Exalted is He, wanted to clarify that just as the chaste women from the believing women are lawful for us, the chaste women from the People of the Book are lawful for us. Because the permissibility of the chaste women from the believing women is known in Surat al-Nisa, which is before this surah, and is explicit about that. But He, Glorified and Exalted is He, and Allah knows best, wanted by that that the permissibility of the chaste women from the believing women and the chaste women from the People of the Book is equal in permissibility. But it does not necessitate that they are equal in permissibility that they are equal in approaching them. Something may be lawful, but we say it is better that you do not approach it. Did you understand this? Meaning, it does not necessitate from the permissibility of the chaste women from the believing women and the chaste women from the People of the Book, it does not necessitate from their permissibility that they are equal in approaching. A woman may be lawful for a man, and it is said: Do not approach her.

The Shaykh : What is meant by "al-muhsanāt" (chaste women)?
The student: Free women.

The Shaykh : There are two opinions on this, but what is the stronger position? The intended meaning is free women; this is the correct view. As for "al-'afifat" (chaste women), that comes in Surat al-Nur . Among the benefits of this noble verse is the high rank of the believer, even if he is not a scholar, based on His saying: The believing women are placed before , even though the People of the Book possess knowledge, while a believer may not possess knowledge. Another benefit of this noble verse is the condition of the mahr (bridal gift) for the permissibility of a woman. Where is this derived from? From His saying: Scholars have disagreed on this issue, and it has different scenarios. The first scenario is when a man marries a woman on the condition that she has no mahr. Is the contract valid? The apparent meaning of this noble verse and the apparent meaning of the verse in Surat al-Nisa is that the contract is not valid. In Surat al-Nisa, Allah the Exalted said: meaning it is not free of charge, but the mahr is necessary. And in this noble verse: This is the stronger opinion: if a man marries a woman on the condition that she has no mahr, the marriage is invalid. What is the reasoning? If he marries her on the condition that she has no mahr, this marriage becomes a gift, and a marriage as a gift is not permissible except for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), based on Allah’s saying: So if he conditions that there is no mahr, that is a gift. Some scholars said the marriage is valid and the condition is defective, and in that case, she is entitled to the mahr of her like. The marriage is valid, the condition is defective, and she is entitled to the mahr of her like. But this opinion is weak because the evidence prevents it. The second scenario is when he marries her and remains silent, not mentioning a mahr. The marriage is valid by the text of the Qur'an, but she is entitled to the mahr of her like, based on Allah’s saying: Then He said: We say that if he has consummated the marriage, she is entitled to the mahr of her like. If he divorces her before consummation, she is entitled to a gift (mut'ah) according to the ease or hardship of her husband. Is the difference between this and the first one clear? What is it? The first one conditions the absence of mahr, and the second one is silence. The third scenario is when he marries her on the condition of a mahr. Is this permissible or not? It is permissible. And the mention of half the mahr is merely an emphasis, an emphasis on what the contract implies. Is it required that if he conditions a mahr, he must specify it or not? It is not required that he specify it. If he specifies it, she gets what he specified. If he does not specify it, she gets the mahr of her like. Another benefit of this noble verse is that the mahr is in the position of a wage, based on His saying: And in that case, a problem arises. It is said: A wage requires knowing the consideration and the thing for which it is paid, and knowing both. Here, the consideration may be unknown, which is the mahr that is not named, and the thing for which it is paid is also unknown. The thing for which it is paid is the benefit of the woman until when? Until death or divorce. This is an unknown matter; she may remain with her husband for twenty years, thirty years, or a hundred years, or she may die in her first week, or he may divorce her in her first week. The mahr of the first and the second is the same, is it not? A man marries a woman for one thousand riyals and she stays with him for a hundred years. Divide the year by a hundred riyals; how much is it per year? One riyal. Another woman marries for a hundred riyals and dies after a hundred days. How much is it per day? One riyal. There is a difference between this and that. But if someone asks: How do you say it is in the position of a wage despite this great difference? We say: Considering the changes in the Shari'ah regarding marriage, the increase in the community, the protection of chastity, and the great interests, the requirements were relaxed. If we said that knowledge of both the consideration and the thing for which it is paid is required, it would cause great hardship, and women would differ in the amount of the mahr. We return to another issue prohibited in the Shari'ah, which is temporary marriage (nikah al-mut'ah). If we said he must know the consideration and the thing for which it is paid, you would ask: How long is the duration of the marriage? Just as if you hired a female servant, you would ask: How long is the duration of the service? For the sake of this great interest, the Shari'ah excused the specification of the duration and the consideration. Another benefit of this noble verse is that it is a condition in marriage. And among its benefits is that the greatest objective in marriage is chastity (ihsan), based on His saying: . Another benefit of this noble verse is the indication that it is recommended to announce the marriage. Why? Because He said: So the marriage must be announced and public. Is it sufficient for its announcement that it takes place with conditions, or must it be displayed and announced? The answer is the second, according to the stronger opinion. But if the witnesses are present with secrecy, if he conditions secrecy, it is not valid; it must be repeated and its secrecy must be abandoned. If he does not condition it, there is disagreement. Some scholars say it is not valid, and some say it is valid. But all scholars agree that announcing the marriage is better, further from suspicion, and further from taking concubines. Another benefit of this noble verse is that enjoying women is divided into categories: obtaining (chastity), fornication, and taking concubines. The difference between them is: the first is a contract according to the Shari'ah, the second is open fornication, and the third is secret fornication. Another benefit of this noble verse is that if one intends fornication or taking a concubine, it does not become a valid marriage, because Allah conditioned, He said: The scholars of the Sunnah used this as evidence for the invalidity of temporary marriage (nikah al-mut'ah), because if temporary marriage is announced, it is fornication, because the man intends only to enjoy, he does not intend to fornicate; he takes pleasure, ejaculates in this woman’s private part, and it ends. If it is hidden, it is of the kind of taking concubines. This is the opinion by the consensus of the people of the Sunnah that temporary marriage is forbidden. It is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: This indicates that it cannot be abrogated, because his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): is a report that includes a ruling, and a ruling whose limit is the Day of Resurrection. If a report includes a ruling whose limit is the Day of Resurrection, it cannot be abrogated, because abrogation is the lifting of a ruling, and what its limit is the Day of Resurrection cannot be lifted.