Continuation of the Explanation of the Issues in the Chapter on What Was Transmitted Regarding the Covenant of Allah and the Covenant of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), Part Two
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : And this is a principle, namely the guidance to the less dangerous of the two matters. This principle is stated in another form, which is "committing the lesser of two harms to avert the greater of them" "committing the lesser of two harms to avert the greater of them" This principle is indicated by both the Shari'ah and reason. As for the Shari'ah: it is in such as the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Al-An'am 6:108] However, cursing the gods of the polytheists is required, but if it entails or necessitates cursing Allah (Mighty and Majestic), it becomes prohibited. [Al-An'am 6:108] Why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because cursing Allah is greater, greater than remaining silent about cursing their gods. So we remain silent, even if there is some harm in this silence, but we remain silent in this matter so that we do not fall into a greater harm. Likewise, there is a corresponding principle in it, which is
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, that, yes, "achieving the greater of two benefits by leaving the lesser of them" meaning that if two benefits coincide, take the greater of them, and if two harms coincide, take the lesser of them. This is indicated by both the Shari'ah and reason as well. All right.
The author said, "The third is his statement:Bulugh al-Maram 11:11 " What is the benefit of it?
The student: In the cause of Allah.
The Shaykh : Is it the obligation of going forth in battle with seeking help from Allah, sincerity to Him, and following His Shari'ah, or not?Bulugh al-Maram 11:11
"The fourth: His statement:Sunan Ibn Majah 2857Hasan (Darussalam) " What is the issue here?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The obligation of fighting, the obligation of fighting the disbelievers, yes, and that the operative cause of fighting them is disbelief. All right, does that mean there is no fighting except for disbelief? No, so disbelief is a cause for fighting, but there are other causes for fighting. So, those who withhold the zakah
The student: They are fought.
The Shaykh : They are fought. And if the people of a town leave off the festival prayer, they are fought. And if they leave off the adhan and the iqamah, they are fought as well. And if two groups fight each other and one of them refuses to return to the command of Allah, then it is fought. So, fighting does not necessarily imply disbelief, but disbelief is a cause for fighting. Thus, fighting has multiple causes.
All right, "The fifth is his statement: " Here, the obligation of seeking help from Allah and that a person should not rely on his own power and strength. You see, the time for questions has come.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : We will continue. All right, "The sixth is the difference between the ruling of Allah and the ruling of the scholars" Because the ruling of Allah is correct without a doubt, while the ruling of the scholars may be correct or may not be correct. This is one point. Second: applying the ruling of Allah to the people of a fortress is prohibited, whether only in the time of the Messenger or even in our time. But applying the ruling of the prince is permissible.
All right, is it taken from the hadith that one should not say when seeking a fatwa, "What is the opinion of Islam regarding such and such," as is now common among people, or for example, a person writes a book saying, "The ruling of Islam is such and such," when it may not be the ruling of Islam? Yes, we say this except in cases where there is a clear, explicit text, in which case there is no harm. For example, if someone asks, "What is the ruling of Islam regarding eating carrion?" you say, "The ruling of Islam regarding eating carrion is that it is forbidden."
"The seventh is regarding the fact that a Companion may issue a ruling out of necessity, not knowing whether it agrees with the ruling of Allah or not" Here.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But the author’s restriction of the Companion to a ruling where he does not know whether it is correct or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, I say, is it apparent that it is specific to the Companions, or even those after them?
The student: Even those after them.
The Shaykh : It appears to be even those after them, even those after them. For it is permissible to rule out of necessity with what one sees as the ruling, and a fortiori, contrary to the view of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Dawud.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because the Companions are closer to the truth than others, so we may permit them to rule in ways we do not permit others. But 'Abd al-Rahman’s intention was that if error is permissible for a Companion,
The student: Is all the more so.
The Shaykh : then it is a fortiori permissible for others. Is that what you mean?
The student: Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly. Good.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is over.
For you, if you violate... and the covenant of its people, "your people, your people, are less [important] than that you violate the covenant of Allah."
فإنكم أن تخفروا .. وذمة أصحابه " " أصحابكم، أصحابك أهون من أن تخفروا ذمة اللهAnd do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge
ولا تسبوا الذين يدعون من دون الله فيسبوا الله عدوا بغير علمAnd do not insult those they invoke other than Allah
ولا تسبوا الذين يدعون من دون اللهThe student: ...
The Shaykh : Because cursing Allah is greater, greater than remaining silent about cursing their gods. So we remain silent, even if there is some harm in this silence, but we remain silent in this matter so that we do not fall into a greater harm. Likewise, there is a corresponding principle in it, which is
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, that, yes, "achieving the greater of two benefits by leaving the lesser of them" meaning that if two benefits coincide, take the greater of them, and if two harms coincide, take the lesser of them. This is indicated by both the Shari'ah and reason as well. All right.
The author said, "The third is his statement:
Go out for Jihad in Allah’s name, in the Cause of Allah
اغزو بسم الله في سبيل اللهThe student: In the cause of Allah.
The Shaykh : Is it the obligation of going forth in battle with seeking help from Allah, sincerity to Him, and following His Shari'ah, or not?
Go out for Jihad in Allah’s name, in the Cause of Allah
اغزو بسم الله في سبيل الله"The fourth: His statement:
Fight those who disbelieve in Allah
قاتلوا من كفر باللهThe student: ...
The Shaykh : The obligation of fighting, the obligation of fighting the disbelievers, yes, and that the operative cause of fighting them is disbelief. All right, does that mean there is no fighting except for disbelief? No, so disbelief is a cause for fighting, but there are other causes for fighting. So, those who withhold the zakah
The student: They are fought.
The Shaykh : They are fought. And if the people of a town leave off the festival prayer, they are fought. And if they leave off the adhan and the iqamah, they are fought as well. And if two groups fight each other and one of them refuses to return to the command of Allah, then it is fought. So, fighting does not necessarily imply disbelief, but disbelief is a cause for fighting. Thus, fighting has multiple causes.
All right, "The fifth is his statement:
Seek help from Allah and fight them
استعن بالله وقاتلهمThe student: ...
The Shaykh : We will continue. All right, "The sixth is the difference between the ruling of Allah and the ruling of the scholars" Because the ruling of Allah is correct without a doubt, while the ruling of the scholars may be correct or may not be correct. This is one point. Second: applying the ruling of Allah to the people of a fortress is prohibited, whether only in the time of the Messenger or even in our time. But applying the ruling of the prince is permissible.
All right, is it taken from the hadith that one should not say when seeking a fatwa, "What is the opinion of Islam regarding such and such," as is now common among people, or for example, a person writes a book saying, "The ruling of Islam is such and such," when it may not be the ruling of Islam? Yes, we say this except in cases where there is a clear, explicit text, in which case there is no harm. For example, if someone asks, "What is the ruling of Islam regarding eating carrion?" you say, "The ruling of Islam regarding eating carrion is that it is forbidden."
"The seventh is regarding the fact that a Companion may issue a ruling out of necessity, not knowing whether it agrees with the ruling of Allah or not" Here.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : But the author’s restriction of the Companion to a ruling where he does not know whether it is correct or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, I say, is it apparent that it is specific to the Companions, or even those after them?
The student: Even those after them.
The Shaykh : It appears to be even those after them, even those after them. For it is permissible to rule out of necessity with what one sees as the ruling, and a fortiori, contrary to the view of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Dawud.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Because the Companions are closer to the truth than others, so we may permit them to rule in ways we do not permit others. But 'Abd al-Rahman’s intention was that if error is permissible for a Companion,
The student: Is all the more so.
The Shaykh : then it is a fortiori permissible for others. Is that what you mean?
The student: Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly. Good.
The questioner : Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is over.