Continuation of the discussion on the issues of contagion and other matters

The questioner : What is the answer to the objection...?

The Shaykh : The answer is what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, that it does not affect by itself.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : This is a reference to this matter, because his saying: is a decisive proof, like the saying of Ibrahim (peace be upon him): It is possible that a Bedouin, if it were explained to him that it does not affect by itself or something similar, might not fully understand it at first glance. But when the decisive matter that cannot be disputed is brought, it is built upon something else.

The questioner : Okay, the one who caused the contagion first, the contagion.

The Shaykh : No, the One who created the disease in the first place is Allah. And for this reason, the disease always comes without any cause, from Allah alone, like the plague. Sometimes its cause is contagion, and sometimes Allah the Exalted sends it down from the sky. Yes.

The questioner : The plague: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed that it is ... not a disease. And he said in another hadith: It is not a disease. If it were a disease, meaning if one person left, there would be no harm; one person would leave the town.

The Shaykh : No, the Messenger said: And is it permissible to leave the town without fleeing? It is permissible, as the Messenger said.

The questioner : If it were a disease, meaning...

The Shaykh : If it were a disease, fleeing from it.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, no, because if one leaves fleeing from it, it means there is a deficiency in reliance upon Allah the Exalted. So as long as you have a purpose in staying in this town, do not leave, like those who left their homes, thousands of them, fearing death. Allah wanted to make it clear to them that there is no escape from it, so He said to them: Die. As for the fact that it is a pricking of our enemies from the jinn, this does not prevent it from being a disease. The disease may have as its cause the aggression of some people. If a human aggresses upon your body, for example, the place of this aggression, the place of the blow, the place of the wound, yes, this is affected. If the hadith is authentic, it also needs to be verified. If the hadith is authentic, then the answer to it is like this.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : .

The questioner : If we say it is a deficiency in reliance, then also has a deficiency...

The Shaykh : No, there is a difference between them, because it does not bring a sick person, like his saying: .

The questioner : ... leaves it and does not remain.

The Shaykh : This is based on the fact that it is permissible to leave it, because this is not a general epidemic, as we answered Brother Isa. So in a general epidemic, you do not leave fleeing from it. As for a personal epidemic, the Messenger said: So you keep your distance from it. It is possible that the meaning of "flee from the leper" means do not sit with him, so it does not include one who was sitting with him and then gets up. This is possible, even though the apparent meaning is general: flee from him, do not come to him. And if he comes to you, strive to keep your distance.

The questioner : Fleeing, O Shaykh, his saying is it possible that it is like "do not bring a sick person"...

The Shaykh : This is if we say "flee from him" means do not sit with him. But the apparent meaning of the hadith is general: flee from him, do not sit with him. And if he sits with you, get up from him. However, this matter also varies according to people. Among people, there is one who is strong in reliance, for whom this influencing cause is nothing. The strength of his reliance is like the armor worn by a fighter; the arrows do not affect him. This is a matter even among people now regarding the evil eye. You know the evil eye; they say it does not affect except the one who fears it. But the person who does not care about it, and perhaps challenges the one who casts the evil eye, it does not affect him. This is due to the strength of the repulsion in his soul. They mentioned that Khalid ibn al-Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) ate poison and was not affected by it. So the important thing is that the strength related to the heart or the body may make Allah place a barrier. Even natural, ordinary diseases: this microbe may enter the body of a person and he is affected by it, being susceptible to it. And it may enter the body of another and the microbe dies and he dies. This microbe that at first, for the second person, killed him. This is something observed. So matters of material and spiritual strength may repel the harm of contagion. And this disease you have now, doctors treat contagious diseases, there is no doubt in this. But due to the strength of their souls, one of them feels that he wants to kill this disease, so he may be protected from it and not be affected by it, because he has the psychological strength to repel the attack of this disease. And if a person reflects on these matters and these material, psychological, and spiritual causes, it becomes clear the wisdom of Allah the Exalted, and that some causes have an effect if the place is susceptible, and some do not have an effect if it is not susceptible. Even the pen and ink now: you write on paper and it is imprinted, but you write on something that has oil or is very smooth, it is not possible. So things must have a susceptible place, even if they are effective in another place.

The questioner : Shaykh, is it possible that the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): ... regarding the plague...

The Shaykh : The wording of the hadith in al-Bukhari is: with this wording. And some of the later scholars said this is from the chapter of protection and quarantine so that it does not spread to other countries. But the Messenger emphasized the side of reliance and dependence upon Allah the Exalted, saying: So if a person leaves, for example, for a need, or if he came to this town for a need and his need is finished and he wants to return to his town, even if the plague has occurred there, it does not fall under the prohibition.

The questioner : The reconciliation, the reconciliation between the evidences, Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned it, saying that This means he relies on the fact that there is no contagion, and the other evidences are carried to mean, so that it does not happen, meaning may Allah the Exalted not will it, a disease occurs, so that it does not happen in the same, meaning.

The Shaykh : The person that it is from contagion.

The questioner : The other person who the disease came to him, that he caused him this, so he avoids this matter.

The Shaykh : He said this, but it is not correct.

The questioner : And the hadith of , he said this is from the chapter of His saying, the Exalted: .

The Shaykh : No, that is a mistake. This is a mistake. As for the first one, the aspect of its mistake is the reality, the aspect of its mistake is the reality.

The questioner : The hadith of the Bedouin who asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about the camels, who caused the contagion first.

The Shaykh : Yes, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified that contagion is transferred by Allah making this disease a cause for transfer. This same disease is transferred, but who made it transfer? It is Allah the Exalted, just as He made the disease come down without there being anything to cause contagion. The matter of Ibn Hazm's statement, on its apparent meaning, (may Allah have mercy on him), as you know, on the surface. But the correct is what Ibn al-Qayyim said in this matter, which is what we referred to, and it is the relied-upon position, because the Shari'ah cannot contradict reality. Even if you said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says that there is no disease that causes contagion, if you said it now, there would be a great uproar against Islam, because now doctors see with their own eyes the contagion, so it is not possible. But if you say this contagion that transferred it from this sick person to this healthy one, and the One who created this disease first is Allah, the objection is resolved. And we say everything is by the decree and destiny of Allah. Yes, okay, this is and I think, if Allah wills, the matter in it is clear, and the reconciliation between the evidences is very clear. And we also said that the material and spiritual or psychological causes are only influencing causes by the permission of Allah the Exalted and the existence of a susceptible place. If there is no susceptible place, then they do not have an effect. And we have known previously that all cosmic and Shari'ah matters must have the presence of conditions and the absence of preventers. Even the Shari'ah causes, the causes of inheritance, if a preventer is found, do they have an effect or not? They do not have an effect. Yes, yes. So this is from the wisdom that the universe and the Shari'ah, Glory be to Allah the Great, do not contradict each other. Both are on one system. You do not see in the creation of the Merciful any imbalance, and you do not find in His Shari'ah any contradiction. Yes, yes.

The questioner : The brother... quoted the words of Ibn Hajar, not Ibn Hazm.

The Shaykh : I do not think it is Ibn Hazm.

The questioner : No, it is Ibn Hajar, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : It is possible that the one who transmitted it did so from Ibn Hazm.

The questioner : I read Ibn Hazm, the chapter of His saying, the Exalted.

The Shaykh : No, do what you want, I do not know about it. But his first statement is from the words of Ibn Hazm. The first statement is from the words of Ibn Hazm. But it is possible that Ibn Hajar transmitted it from him. In any case, whether it is Ibn Hajar or Ibn Hazm or any person, this statement is not correct and it is not befitting.

The questioner : If we say the susceptible place now, animals are affected by the evil eye... and they do not know.

The Shaykh : Yes, because what is with her is a preventing power. The fact that the place is receptive does not mean that there is fear, as I said. Rather, the evil eye strikes stones and breaks them, demolishes buildings, and stops cars. Yes, it was related to us that a group of people were working here in the valley, and a car passed by them after the afternoon prayer. We say this because it is an interesting story... it will liven you up a bit, as if you are... He said it passed after the afternoon prayer. Some of them said to each other, "I wish this had not passed except after we finished, so we could ride in it to..." One of them, may Allah protect us, cast the evil eye. He said, "No, no, don't worry, it is not going." Yes, the important thing is that it went around three or four cubits and stopped. The driver got out, looked, thought, and considered. Everything was fine. It would not move. It would not start at all. They... went to their work. The 'Asr prayer time came, they prayed, and the people were not in a state of panic at first. They were eating dates after 'Asr... a state of calm and reassurance. They came out of the workshop and said, "They came to the car's shepherd." They said to him, "I hope it is not bad." ... O son of the noble, he said, "By Allah, I do not know about it. It stopped, and I looked at everything, and there is nothing." They said, "A person is pushing it..." It took us to Unayzah. He said... They said, "Get in..." He is pushing it with you. Yes, indeed, they pushed it with him, and he tried. When they started it, it ran, and they got in and got out. Glory be to Allah the Great. Wonders. Yes, it is known, but I do not want to mention it.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Entering a town where the plague is, why is it not permissible? Is it not from reliance upon Allah?

The Shaykh : No, this is from avoiding causes. It is from avoiding causes, just as you avoid fire and avoid a place of demolition and the like. So this is from the category of avoiding causes. This indicates that it has an effect.

The questioner : What is the difference between it and leaving?

The Shaykh : There is a difference between them, because leaving is when the command has descended. We passed through a jurisprudential rule previously that applies to this. It passed through us, perhaps the day before yesterday or yesterday. "Repelling is easier than removing". So repelling a thing before it descends is easier than removing it after it has descended.
Now, it was mentioned to us that the Prophet's statement: This is a negation, but is it a negation in its original sense, or is it a negation meaning prohibition? Because negation can come to mean prohibition. They differed on this, just as they differed on His saying, the Exalted: Is this the beginning of the lesson tonight?
The student: No, we took it.

The Shaykh : No, Shaykh. Now, this does not contradict what we passed through. This is like their difference on His saying, the Exalted: Is it a negation or a negation meaning prohibition? And the correct view is that it is a negation for two reasons:
The first reason: The apparent meaning of the text is that this is the apparent meaning, and it is not permissible for us to deviate from the apparent meaning of the text except with evidence.
And secondly: The negation is more emphatic than the prohibition, because the negation implies the non-existence, and the prohibition implies the prevention. There is a difference between the two. There is a difference between something that implies non-existence entirely and something that implies prohibition from the act. So if we say it is a negation meaning prohibition, the meaning becomes prohibition from the act, which is taking an omen. And if we say it is a negation in its original sense, it negates taking an omen. Now, is this negation a negation of its existence or a negation of its effect? It is a negation of its effect. As for the existence, it has been found that some people take omens. But it is a negation of its effect. So the omen does not have an effect in reality. If birds go to the right or to the left, or in front or behind, do they have an effect in existence or in non-existence, in creation or in annihilation? No. So there is no omen. We mentioned that the "Hammah" was interpreted in two ways: One is that it is a disease in the stomach, so its conjunction with his saying: is from the category of joining the specific to the general. And the second opinion is that the "Hammah" is a bird, said to be the owl or resembling it, and it screams. When it screams over one of their houses, he says: "I will be destroyed, or one of my family will be destroyed," and the like. So this has no effect. And it was said that the "Hammah" is a worm that is created, in their claim. It is not truly a worm. They claim that it is created from the spirit of the murdered person, and that it flies and screams until the killer is executed. Yes, until the killer is executed. And all of this is from the matters of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, having no reality. Yes. As for if the "Hammah" is a disease in the stomach that transfers to the healthy, then our saying about it is like our saying about "no contagion." But if it is this bird, or if it is a worm that comes out of the grave of the murdered person and is created from his spirit and calls his family to take revenge, then this is an illusion with no reality at all. He says in the poet's saying:
"O Amr, if you do not leave" and what does he say? "my insults and my disparagement *** I will strike you until the Hammah says: 'Give us drink'" The point is this: "until the Hammah says: 'Give us drink'" meaning I will strike you until you die.
And his saying: They also differed in its interpretation in three opinions: The first opinion: It is not Safar. It is a prohibition of deferment. They used to defer Muharram from the sacred months in the pre-Islamic age. When they gathered in it for fighting, they made it permissible and postponed... to the month of Safar. So this is the deferment that Allah, the Exalted, mentioned, whereby they make lawful what Allah has forbidden. This is one opinion, and this opinion is weak. It is weakened by the fact that the hadith is in the context of taking omens, not in the context of... And it was said that Safar is a disease that also comes out in the stomach, causing illness and transferring. And it was said that Safar is the month of Safar, and that they used to take it as an ill omen in the pre-Islamic age from this month. And it is known that times have no share in effect or in the decree of Allah, the Exalted. Now, so this opinion is the closest thing: that Safar means the month, meaning there is no ill omen in it, and it is like the other times, in which good is decreed and evil is decreed. I hear that some people date things and say: "It ended on the twenty-fifth of Safar al-Khayr (Safar the Good)." What is your opinion of this? This is wrong. This is from the category of treating an innovation with an innovation and ignorance with ignorance. So it is not a month of good nor a month of evil. It is like the other months. For this reason, the Salaf (the earliest generations) rebuked those who, when they hear the owl screaming, say: "Good, good, if Allah wills." They rebuked him and said: "Do not say good or evil. It screams just as the other birds scream."

The questioner : Shaykh, their saying about the month of Ramadan, "the month of goodness and blessing," as if it is a month, meaning...

The Shaykh : No, this is not a problem. The goodness they intend by goodness is worship. And there is no doubt that it is a month of goodness.

The questioner : They say, for example, Rajab al-Mu'azzam (the Honored Rajab)... Rajab al-Mu'azzam.

The Shaykh : Yes, based on the fact that it is from the sacred months.
Now, so these four things that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) negated show us that they are all based on the obligation of reliance upon Allah, the Exalted, and the sincerity of resolve, and that a person should not be concerned with these matters. Because a person in these matters, if he gives them his mind, is not free from two states: either he responds to them, and in that case, he has attached his actions to what has no basis. He responds to them, meaning he advances or holds back, or the like, so he has attached his actions to what has no reality. Or he does not respond to this matter, but there remains in his heart a sting, an illusion, and grief. Meaning he has a type of reliance, and he advances and does not care, but there is something in his heart. So we say to him also, this, although it is easier than the first, it is also obligatory not to respond to the call of these matters that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) negated, and to be dependent upon Allah, the Exalted. Some people, for example, may search the mushaf (a written copy of the Qur'an) to seek a good omen. He says, "Let me see what I see first." Then if he sees a mention of the Fire, he says, "By Allah, this is a bad omen, it is not good." And if he sees a mention of Paradise, he says, "This is a good omen." This is also wrong. This is like the pre-Islamic age, like the one who seeks a decision by the arrows. So the result is that we say: Do not put such matters on your mind at all. The known, apparent causes: avoid the causes of evil, avoid them. As for the imagined causes that the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) has not made a cause, but has negated, it is not permissible for you to attach yourself to them. Thank Allah for health and say: "Our Lord, upon You we have relied." And the cure for taking omens will come, if Allah wills.

The questioner : Now, Shaykh, the mushaf... this is seeking a good omen, not taking an ill omen, if he did not give it his mind...

The Shaykh : Absolutely not, and he should not seek a good omen, because this is from religious innovation. Some people of knowledge did it, but it is an innovation. The correct view is that it is from religious innovation. And a person's dependence on these matters, also on seeking a good omen and taking an ill omen, always, this affects the course of his life. He begins, if he does not find what he seeks a good omen from, he becomes disappointed and says, "By Allah, today we did not see anything to seek a good omen from." Yes.

The questioner : And the saying of the Messenger: .

The Shaykh : What contradicts this delights me: the practice of seeking good omens. However, the Messenger did not seek good omens in everything. I like the idea of seeking good omens when a person hears something that pleases him or something similar; there is no doubt that a person is pleased by it, just as when Suhayl arrived at the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, he said: and the like. But if a person makes these matters a preoccupation and seeks them out deliberately, then this is an innovation. Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, this is also a mistake. This is a mistake because the people of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance also took bad omens from it in marriage and other matters, but specifically on Wednesday they took bad omens from it in marriage.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, no, it is not befitting. The Messenger did not guide us to this, nor did he do it himself, nor did he do it... Therefore, we say that it is neither good nor bad; it is not good and not bad. Yes, if it were assumed that this belief became widespread among people and they began to take bad omens, and someone wanted to clarify to them that there is no reality to this matter, and he married in the month of Safar for the sake of clarification or to verify the report of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in his saying: then this would have a valid basis. This would have a valid basis, so this issue would be in a specific case, not in general.