Explanation of the author's statement: "Then, after you will come a people who testify but are not asked to testify, who betray but are not trusted, who make vows but do not fulfill them, and fatness will be apparent among them."

The Shaykh : The important thing, in any case, is what I see should be read correctly... the narration of al-Bukhari This is the correct version.
means they inform about what they testified to, about what they saw, heard, smelled, or touched, because testimony is a person informing about what he knows, as Allah the Exalted said: So the meaning of "they inform" is by the phrase "I testify" or otherwise, because the correct view is that it is not a condition for testimony to be with the phrase "I testify"... "It was said to Imam Ahmad: So-and-so says, 'I say that the ten are in Paradise, and I do not testify.' He said: 'If he said it, then he has testified'" So the witness in testimony is a person informing about what he knows, yes.
And his saying: means they are not asked to testify, and they are not asked to testify. The scholars differed regarding his saying : Is the meaning that they are not asked to perform testimony, or that they are not asked to undertake testimony? Because his saying , what is the meaning of it?
The student: Meaning they made them carry it.

The Shaykh : Meaning they made them carry it, meaning ask for two witnesses to testify for them, yes. So on this view, means they are not asked to undertake testimony, it is not said, "O so-and-so, testify," yes. So it is a blame for one who testifies without being asked to testify, to undertake it. And it was said means they are not asked to perform testimony, meaning they testify before being called to perform testimony. This is evidence for, and in both views there is evidence for their haste in testimony and their lack of care and deliberation regarding it.
And it was said that the meaning is meaning they do not carry testimony, meaning they testify to what they do not know. On this view, the intended meaning is false witnesses who testify without [true] testimony. And on the last view, there is no problem in the issue. And on the view that they are not asked to undertake, that they are not asked to undertake, there is no problem in the issue except in some cases. And on the view that they do not perform testimony, that they perform testimony before being asked to perform it, this is problematic... What is established in the Sahih of Zayd ibn Khalid, which Muslim narrated, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said And this evidence, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said it, encouraging the performance of testimony before being asked, is it not?
The student: Encouraging.

The Shaykh : Encouraging, how is it encouraging?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : ... Encouraging, how was it an encouragement? Because he said: So the meaning of that is that it urges a person to perform his testimony before being asked. So if we say this, there is an apparent contradiction between the hadith of Ibn Khalid and the hadith of 'Umaran ibn al-Husayn. Did you understand the meaning? How many aspects are in it?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Three, meaning they testify to what they do not know, meaning false witnesses. They are not asked to undertake testimony. They are not asked to perform testimony, meaning they testify before... them. On this aspect, there is a contradiction between this hadith and the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid. The scholars differed on that. Some said that the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid invalidates the third aspect in the hadith of 'Umaran ibn al-Husayn, and that it must be acted upon, while the hadith of 'Umaran ibn al-Husayn is not acted upon regarding its third aspect.
And some said, rather, we take the third aspect and interpret the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid to mean that the intended one is one who testifies to a right that the person testified for does not know, meaning to testify to a right that the person testified for does not know. How is it a right when the person testified for knows it? Yes, it is possible, for example, I may have heard Zayd's acknowledgment of a debt owed to 'Amr, yes, and 'Amr did not know that I was present. It could be in the darkness, or behind a wall, or something like that. So when I go and perform the testimony before the judge, or inform the owner of the right, is this praiseworthy or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is praiseworthy. And I may have testimony for someone, for someone, and the right passed to the heirs, and the heirs do not know that I am a witness to it, so... if they did not ask for the testimony, is this also praiseworthy or not?
The student: Praiseworthy.

The Shaykh : Praiseworthy. So they interpret it as testimony that the... did not know about?
The student: The person testified for.

The Shaykh : The person testified for. And some said the intended meaning of the hadith of Ibn Khalid, Zayd ibn Khalid, is testimony in the rights of Allah, meaning testimony in hisbah (public interest), so one performs the testimony without being asked, because the norm is that testimony in the rights of Allah has no one to demand it, so the witness goes and testifies, and this is the best of witnesses. And some did not take the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid at all, because the hadith of 'Umaran is in the two Sahihs and the hadith of Ibn Khalid is in Muslim. So they tried to prefer one, but it has been established for us that the rule is that if reconciliation is possible, yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is not permissible to prefer one, and reconciliation is possible here by interpreting the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid as what?
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : As when the person testified for did not know about the testimony, or that it is in the rights of Allah which have no claimants, or that the intended meaning is haste, meaning it is an allusion to the speed of performing testimony and hastening in it, so it is as if he is very swift in it, as if he performs it before being asked, even if that is not in the literal sense. And in any case, the hadith of 'Umaran ibn al-Husayn that is with us is the Messenger's (peace and blessings be upon him) blame of those who testify but are not asked to testify, and the intended meaning is not that they testify before being asked to perform testimony, no, because that may be praiseworthy as in the hadith of Zayd ibn Khalid. But the intended meaning is false witnesses, or those who testify without being asked to undertake it, but they do so in a way that causes enmity and hatred between the person testified for and the person testified against, because there may be kinship and friendship between the owner of the right and the one who owes the right, such that the owner of the right does not like the one demanded to feel that he has been testified against. So this man comes and testifies without being made to carry it, without being made to carry it. Also, the speech between the person testified for and against may be in jest, not in seriousness, so this man comes and testifies without being made to carry it, and they do not want anyone to testify because the matter is in jest and play, not in seriousness.
And the summary is: that we interpret the hadith of 'Umaran ibn al-Husayn as saying they testify falsely, clearly, or they testify without being made to carry the testimony in a way that harms the person testified for. And if there is benefit in that, he is not blamed.
... Their descriptions You might say what comes to mind is to say here, they betray, they are trusted, they betray. But in the hadith... upon reflection, the meaning is that they are people of betrayal and not people of trust, and the meaning is not that betrayal happens from them once in a while, so that it is said why did he not say "they are trusted, they betray." As if these people, may Allah protect us, betrayal is as if it is their nature, so for their betrayal, here.
The student: They are not trusted.

The Shaykh : They are not trusted. So what is betrayal? Betrayal is treachery and deception in a place of trust. This is betrayal, and it is one of the blameworthy traits in all cases. As for stratagem and deception, they are blameworthy in one case and not another. Stratagem may be praiseworthy, and deception may be praiseworthy, unlike betrayal. For this reason, Allah the Mighty and Majestic is described with stratagem and deception in the case where it is praise, yes, as in His saying: But He is never described with betrayal. Here, like the saying of the common people now: "Allah betrayed the one who betrayed, Allah betrayed the one who betrayed." This is forbidden. Allah the Mighty and Majestic says: And He did not say "so He betrayed them." He said: So betrayal is a blameworthy trait, and it is: deceiving another in a place... in a place of trust.
So means they are not people of trust, so they are not trusted with blood, or wealth, or honor, like that?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : A person does not trust them with anything ever, because they are people of betrayal. This is in the century...
The student: The first one.

The Shaykh : The fourth, in the fourth century it appears, so what about now in the century...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The fifteenth. No doubt the matters have worsened, worsened. And it was mentioned in a hadith... another hadith meaning it appears and is not far off, because the one who testifies without knowledge is a liar.
He said: A vow may be made to a human being, or it may be made to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). A vow to a human being means a pledge that a person makes between himself and another, because the original meaning of a vow is to bind oneself to something. This is called a vow: binding oneself to something. If it is an act of worship, it is specific to Allah. If it is not an act of worship, it may be made with another person and is called a pledge. They vow to Allah and do not fulfill it, and they pledge to the created and do not fulfill it. This is among the characteristics of hypocrisy.
The vow, and we will come to it, if Allah wills, in jurisprudence, where it is divided into categories. One of them is the vow of obedience, and its making is disliked.
The student: It is obligatory.

The Shaykh : Is it obligatory? The vow of obedience, and its making is disliked, and it is not obligatory?
The student: Disliked.

The Shaykh : Disliked, but fulfilling it is obligatory. Fulfilling it is obligatory. And one of them is a vow of something permissible, such as saying, "I have a vow upon me to Allah that I will wear this garment, or that I will enter this place." This is not a vow of obedience. We say, if you do not do it, then you must pay the expiation for an oath. The details of this will come, if Allah wills.
He said: It appears, meaning it spreads and becomes common, the fattening... your upper arms. Fattening means an abundance of fat and flesh. Yes. But this hadith is very difficult, because the appearance of fat is not by human choice, or is it? How many people wish to reduce the flesh on them but they cannot... or is it? And how many people are thin and wish to fatten but they cannot... So how does the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) make this characteristic, which is not by human choice in its existence or non-existence, a characteristic of blame? The scholars said the meaning is that these people take care of the foods and drinks that lead to fattening. They take care of the causes of fattening. Their only concern is repairing their bodies. They have no concern except to repair their bodies. Yes, do you have a scale? Yes, do you have a scale? In the coffee shop, every day you weigh yourself. If you lose... a kilo, you think to yourself, what is the matter? Yes. And if you gain, also beyond the usual weight, yes, you think to yourself, why is this growth? Perhaps some glands have started to secrete, started to grow, then the body grows... This exists now. It exists in people who do this. They have scales and weigh themselves every day. Yes, and they see what the increase is, what the decrease is? Yes, they complete what is lacking and try to remove the excess. This is complete care for the body. But the hearts are not healthy, because when the soul is occupied with something, it is occupied away from other things. His heart does not care whether he fattens or thins. What matters is this body: does it fatten or not? For this reason, he said: For engaging in what?
For engaging in its causes. So it is as if they do not care except for what is a cause for the growth and increase of their bodies. As for anything else, they do not care about it. And as for the fat that a person has no choice in, is he blamed for it or not? Just as a person is not blamed for being tall or short, or black or white, yes, or lame or sound. He is not blamed. But he is blamed for something that is the cause of it, which he does not care about except for that. This is in the fourth century.
The student: The fourth.

The Shaykh : And in our century, it is more severe and more severe. In our century, it is more severe and more severe. Until I found in a book that says, meaning, a person should be good in... and so on and so on, until it said, he wears clean clothes and shaves his beard.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, he shaves his beard. And this exists now. It exists in people's hands. A book exists in people's hands.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Well, it is not up to you regarding them. The important thing is how the upbringing is, and I seek refuge in Allah, to this extent they make disobedience to the Lawgiver one of the good appearances. Yes.