Explanation of the author's statement: It contains two issues: the first is the prohibition of *nashrah* (counter-spells). The second is the distinction between what is prohibited and what is permitted regarding the removal of spells.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, he said: "It contains issues: the first is the prohibition of *nashrah* (counter-spells)" because of his saying: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 13:100 But does it contain the form of prohibition? Does it contain the form of prohibition? No, it does not contain the form of prohibition, "do not do it," but it contains what indicates prohibition, because the ways of establishing prohibition are not limited to the form alone, but also include blaming the doer, saying "this is from the work of Satan," and describing the thing as ugly, and the like. So it is not specific to the form of prohibition. All right.
"The second: the distinction between what is prohibited and what is permitted regarding the removal of spells" The distinction between what is prohibited and what is permitted regarding the removal of spells. Yes, where is this taken from? Where is it taken from, Hussein? Where is it taken from? ... Hussein, pay attention, pay attention, you are smart, praise be to Allah, if you focus. Yes, Fahd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The question says the author: "The distinction between what is prohibited and what is permitted regarding the removal of spells" Where is this taken from? He says this is not from the issues in the chapter. Yes, yes, Saleh, where is it taken from? The distinction between this and that?
The student: From the words of Ibn al-Qayyim.
The Shaykh : Correct, from the words of Ibn al-Qayyim. He said that there is evidence, saying the distinction between this and that, and this is taken from the words of Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) and his detailed explanation. Yes.
The questioner : The jurists permitted *nashrah* (counter-spells) for sorcery, even though the sorcerer is not permissible...
The Shaykh : Out of necessity.
The questioner : Yes, out of necessity, but the sorcerer is not permissible... How do they reconcile their statements?
The Shaykh : No, in their view, the sorcerer who is not declared a disbeliever, but it is obligatory to leave him alone, correct? For example, if it turns out that this is a sorcerer, for instance, and he cannot be killed, or the authorities left him alone, or the like. Otherwise, yes, this one must be killed. There is a problem, but it is said that he remained, or it is said that the sorcerer who does not harm but only benefits people is left alone. As long as we said his work is permissible, there is no reason for him to be killed. The issue needs more clarification. Sam, read the chapter.
It is from the work of Satan
هي من عمل الشيطان"The second: the distinction between what is prohibited and what is permitted regarding the removal of spells" The distinction between what is prohibited and what is permitted regarding the removal of spells. Yes, where is this taken from? Where is it taken from, Hussein? Where is it taken from? ... Hussein, pay attention, pay attention, you are smart, praise be to Allah, if you focus. Yes, Fahd.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The question says the author: "The distinction between what is prohibited and what is permitted regarding the removal of spells" Where is this taken from? He says this is not from the issues in the chapter. Yes, yes, Saleh, where is it taken from? The distinction between this and that?
The student: From the words of Ibn al-Qayyim.
The Shaykh : Correct, from the words of Ibn al-Qayyim. He said that there is evidence, saying the distinction between this and that, and this is taken from the words of Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) and his detailed explanation. Yes.
The questioner : The jurists permitted *nashrah* (counter-spells) for sorcery, even though the sorcerer is not permissible...
The Shaykh : Out of necessity.
The questioner : Yes, out of necessity, but the sorcerer is not permissible... How do they reconcile their statements?
The Shaykh : No, in their view, the sorcerer who is not declared a disbeliever, but it is obligatory to leave him alone, correct? For example, if it turns out that this is a sorcerer, for instance, and he cannot be killed, or the authorities left him alone, or the like. Otherwise, yes, this one must be killed. There is a problem, but it is said that he remained, or it is said that the sorcerer who does not harm but only benefits people is left alone. As long as we said his work is permissible, there is no reason for him to be killed. The issue needs more clarification. Sam, read the chapter.