Then he said, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), this is the beginning of today's lesson, then he said, meaning after the praise and the commendation

The Shaykh : the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), this is the beginning of today's lesson
meaning after the praise and the commendation: This construction "As for what comes after" they said is a substitute for a condition and a conditional verb, for a conditional particle and a conditional verb. Its estimation is: whatever happens after, meaning after what I said, is what I will say: to the end of it. Yes, and it was said that there is no need for this estimation, but rather "As for" is conditional in itself, indicating the condition and the detail, and "after" is a circumstantial phrase connected to an omitted [verb] appropriate to the occasion, appropriate to the occasion, and the "fa" is a connector for the answer to the detail, like . In any case, the word "As for what comes after," some said it is a word used to transition from one style to another, but this is not correct. The known, and one who follows the speech of the Arabs sees that it is a word said before the subject, meaning the subject of the speech. So the introduction is brought first, then when entering the subject, it is said "As for what comes after, as for what comes after." And some scholars claimed that it is the "separation of speech" given to Dawud . The correct view is that it is not it, and that the "separation of speech" is the judgment between people, in governments or in disputes that occur between them.
Then he said: "What" is a question word, and "bal" means "concern" or "affair," meaning what is their affair. The question here is for denial. "Men" (men) is not mentioned as a restriction because women are like men, but if one expresses it with "men," women are included, and if one expresses it with "women," men are included, except by evidence. And here he made them indefinite so that their specific identities are not known, because the matter is not about knowing specific identities, but rather the matter is about knowing the circumstances and cases that occur. They stipulate conditions that are not in the Book of Allah. They stipulate conditions. The condition has passed us by many times; what is it in language?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : A sign. And from that is His saying, the Exalted: In terminology: that upon which validity or binding depends. That upon which validity or binding depends. If it is a condition of Allah, validity depends upon it. If it is a condition of a person, binding depends upon it. Binding depends upon it. For this reason, we say there are conditions for a thing and conditions in a thing. The conditions for a thing are from the establishment of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and they are fixed whether stipulated or not stipulated, and no person can waive them. These conditions established by Allah are three matters: from Allah, secondly, fixed whether stipulated or not stipulated, thirdly: no one can waive them or drop them. Are these conditions for a thing or conditions in a thing?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : These are conditions for a thing upon which validity depends, or upon which validity depends. So the conditions of sale, for example, are conditions of prayer, conditions of Hajj, and the like.
As for conditions in a thing, they are from the establishment of humans. The human is the one who establishes them, like this, Ahmad?
And secondly, they do not become fixed except by stipulation, and if silence is kept regarding them, they do not become fixed.
Thirdly, for whom are they? For the one who can waive them and drop them.
Fourthly, fourthly, that the contract is valid without them. That the contract is valid without them, even if they are not fulfilled, the contract is valid.
Fifthly, that they are divided into valid and defective, because they are from the establishment of humans. So these are five differences between them and conditions for a thing. Conditions for a thing have four differences, okay?
The student: The first condition...

The Shaykh : The first difference.
The student: The first difference is that conditions for a thing...

The Shaykh : That conditions for a thing are from the establishment of Allah.
The student: From the establishment of Allah.

The Shaykh : Okay, wait, this is one, yes?
The student: The second condition is that they are fixed. Conditions for a thing are fixed...

The Shaykh : Whether stipulated or not stipulated. So knowledge of the sold item, for example, is fixed whether you stipulated it or not stipulated it. And as for conditions in a thing.
The student: ... either you stipulate it or not...

The Shaykh : So they do not become fixed except by stipulation. Okay, thirdly, Badr?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No one can drop it. And conditions in a thing?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, before this, valid, no one... fixed, no one can drop it, unlike conditions in a thing. So for whom is the condition?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : To waive it and drop it. Okay, fourthly?
The student: Conditions in a thing can be valid and...

The Shaykh : They may be valid and they may be defective.
The student: Conditions for a thing are not valid.

The Shaykh : They are all valid because they are
The student: From Allah

The Shaykh : From Allah, Mighty and Majestic. Fifthly?
The student: That conditions for a thing, the contract cannot be made except with them.

The Shaykh : Yes. Conditions for a thing, conditions in a thing. The contract is completed without them, without them, like this, or not? Okay, this last one branches from our saying that conditions for a thing are a condition for validity, and conditions in a thing are a condition for binding, not for validity, because it is permissible to leave the conditions in a thing, but the thing is not binding except with them. Okay, these conditions we mentioned that are conditions in a thing that occurred from 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), are they a condition for the thing or in the thing?
The student: In the thing.

The Shaykh : In which condition in the thing? For this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) invalidated them. He said This is a sentence that has some difficulty except by way of interpretation, because his saying: its apparent meaning is that the condition must have been mentioned in the Book of Allah. And it is known that conditions in a thing are mentioned and not mentioned. They are mentioned and not mentioned. For example, if the buyer stipulated that the kinship (wala') is for him if he frees [the slave], was this condition present in the Book of Allah or not? If the buyer stipulated that he benefits from the thing, here? Is it present in the Book of Allah or not?
The student: He is present.

The Shaykh : Okay, the seller who sold the palm trees after they were pollinated stipulated that the fruit is for him, here?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : A condition mentioned in the Book of Allah. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This is clear now, not a problem. But if a condition is found that the Book was silent about, the Book was silent about it, and it is from the valid conditions, as in the hadith of Jabir that preceded. He stipulated carrying it to Madinah, although we say that the one who stipulated in the hadith of Jabir is? The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And what came from the Messenger of Allah is like what came from Allah, so this is included in the conditions that are in the Book of Allah. But there are things other than the condition mentioned that occurred in the hadith of Jabir, but it was not mentioned in the Book or the Sunnah. So the apparent meaning of this hadith that is with us is that it is prohibited, because he said: But the people of knowledge said the intended meaning is "not in the Book of Allah [regarding its ruling]," so it is not in the Book of Allah, meaning it is not from what Allah made lawful in His Book. They argued for this by saying that this is the meaning, and as you know, this is from interpretation, contrary to the apparent wording. They argued for this by his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: and by his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: And this indicates that what a person stipulates is fixed except if it contradicts?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The condition of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, by making a forbidden thing lawful or a lawful thing forbidden. And his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: meaning in His written [record], and the intended meaning is the Qur'an. It was called a Book because it is written in the Preserved Tablet: And because it is written in the scrolls in the hands of the angels , and because it is written in the scrolls in the hands of humans, is that not so? For this reason, it was called a Book.
If someone asks, is the Sunnah from the Book of Allah? The answer is that in ruling, it is in the Book of Allah. In ruling, it is in the Book of Allah. But as for the one who spoke it, it is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). But the ruling of what came in the Sunnah is like the ruling of what came in the Qur'an, as Allah the Exalted said: He said: And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So what came in the Sunnah is in the Book of Allah. What came in the Sunnah is in the Book of Allah, because Allah informed us that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is explaining to us what was revealed to him, and He said: ... What is its grammatical analysis?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No.
The student: Conditional.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Conditional.

The Shaykh : It is conditional, meaning that whatever the condition is, here it is conditional, the condition was fulfilled, and its response is that it is invalid. The phrase is an attribute of the condition, and "condition" is the subject of *kana*, but it is in the genitive case due to the extra *min*. Now, I may have said that it is not in the Book of Allah that it is an attribute of the condition, but the correct view is that it is the predicate of *kana* if we consider *kana* to be incomplete. If we consider it complete, meaning that whatever condition is found, it is valid, then we would parse "not in the Book of Allah" as an attribute.
Now, the invalid is that which is lost in vain, lost in vain, that which has no effect and is not considered. So every condition that is not in the Book of Allah is invalid. Yes, the meaning of invalid is that it is not considered, invalid in vain, and the one who stipulates it gains nothing but the fatigue of the tongue or the limbs if the condition is defective.
Now, he said: These conditions, even if they are gathered, are invalid if they contradict the Book of Allah. It is also possible that the intended meaning is "even if it were a hundred conditions," meaning even if one stipulated a hundred times, using *inna* to emphasize the condition. *Inna* emphasized his condition. This meaning is the closest, that the intended meaning is even if he stipulated a hundred times. In that case, "condition" here is a verbal noun, not a noun, according to what we said. The meaning would be even if there were a hundred stipulations, meaning even if he stipulated it a hundred times, its emphasis does not add to its emphasis or its firmness. Yes.
Then he said, peace and blessings be upon him, the decree of Allah, meaning that which He decrees, Mighty and Majestic, is more rightful because it is the truth. Allah the Exalted said: The intended meaning of decree here is the legal decree, because the legal decree is that which can be opposed by something similar. An atheist might come and say, "This decree, I will bring a law and a constitution that is more rightful than it." As for the cosmic decree, the cosmic decree can never be opposed. No one can say that he can ward off death from himself, or illness, or calamities. But what can be opposed is the legal decree. So if it is opposed, which is more rightful? The decree of Allah, the decree of Allah. As for the cosmic decree, it cannot be opposed, and no one opposes it except a madman or a stubborn denier. Therefore, we say that the decree of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is divided into two parts: a cosmic decree and a legal decree.
Of the cosmic decree is the saying of the Exalted: This is a cosmic decree and cannot be a legal decree, because Allah the Exalted does not decree corruption in law, but only decrees good and reform. The legal decree is like the saying of the Exalted: This is a legal decree, because if it were a cosmic decree, no one would remain an associate of partners with Allah. If Allah decreed a cosmic decree that we should not worship except Him, no one would remain in associating partners with Allah; all people would worship Allah. But this is a legal decree. Now, ?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Legislative.

The Shaykh : It includes both matters, so the decree of Allah, both the legal and the cosmic, is the truth. Now, what is the difference between the two decrees? The difference between the two decrees is from two aspects:
The first aspect is that what is decreed cosmically must necessarily occur, unlike what is decreed legally.
Second, what is decreed cosmically relates to what Allah loves and what He does not love, whereas what is decreed legally is only in what He loves. Either He loves its performance and commands it, or He loves its omission and forbids it. This is the difference between the two decrees.
His saying we say here it is the legal decree, because it is in that where a comparison can be made between it and the decree of others. As for the cosmic decree, a comparison cannot be made in it, because no one opposes the cosmic decree of Allah.
Perhaps someone will say, why not make it general? You would say that in terms of the cosmic decree, there is nothing in the other party. Yes, and sometimes the estimation and the side being preferred over has nothing in it. Allah the Exalted said: It is known that the abode of the people of the Fire has no good in it, and as for their resting place, it has nothing of a good resting place at all. But the comparison came from the perspective of clarifying that there is no difference in reward between this and that.
Now, why? More rightful means more just and more truthful, or more rightful to be followed?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It includes both matters, it includes both matters. So it is more rightful in the sense of being more in accordance with the truth, more established, and more sound. And it is also more rightful to be followed than others. Then he said: The difference between the ... and the condition is that the condition is the attributes that Allah the Exalted makes the basis for the ruling, and the decree is the ruling. For example, the ruling is the obligation of prayer. The obligation of prayer has conditions, does it not? It has conditions, such as reaching puberty, sanity, Islam, purity, and the like. So the difference between the decree and the condition is that the decree is the ruling, and the condition is the attribute by which the ruling is established. The conditions that Allah stipulated and made attributes in His rulings are more secure than others, meaning stronger, more established, and more guaranteed, as Allah the Exalted said:
Now: This phrase is actually the result of what preceded, which is the invalidation of the condition that contradicts the Book of Allah. The second is describing it by saying that the decree of Allah is more rightful and its condition is more secure. One of the results of that is that loyalty belongs to the one who frees a slave. This is from the decree of Allah and its condition, so loyalty belongs to the one who frees a slave, even if someone stipulated otherwise, it would be an invalid condition because it is not in the Book of Allah. The meaning of this phrase has already been mentioned. And his saying: includes the case where the one who frees is a woman or a man, and the one freed is a woman or a man.
Now: " And in a wording from Muslim, agreed upon, and the wording is from al-Bukhari. And in Muslim he said:

Buy her and emancipate her, and let the right of inherit- ance vest in them

اشتريها وأعتقيها واشترطي لهم الولاء

Sahih Muslim 1504d

. " The author brought this wording because of his saying: which indicates that if the mukatab is bought, his buyer is permitted to free him, because of his saying It cannot be said that the cause of freedom was established with the seller. The cause of freedom was established with the seller, and what is it?
The student: The mukatabah.

The Shaykh : The mukatabah, but the reality of the freedom did not occur except with the buyer, otherwise he would say, "I free her." So before he pays his mukatabah, the mukatab is a slave.