Clarification of whether the law of those before us is our law.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The scholars have differed regarding the rulings of the previous messengers: are they rulings for us if our law has not come down with a contrary ruling, or are they not rulings for us?
The correct view is that they are rulings for us, and that whatever is established regarding the previous prophets in terms of rulings is for us, except if our law comes down with a contrary ruling. If our law comes down with a contrary ruling, then it is according to that contrary ruling.
For example: prostration upon greeting was permissible in the law of Yusuf, Ya'qub, and his sons, when Yusuf entered upon them, he took in his two parents[Yusuf 12:100] But in our law, it is forbidden. Is that permissible? No.
Camels are forbidden for the Jews, right? Forbidden. They do not eat the camel. Yes, it is forbidden for the Jews.[Al-An'am 6:146] It is forbidden for them to eat them. But is it forbidden in our law? It is lawful.
The student: ...?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. "Claw" means that which has no split. Whatever has a split in its hand is from those with claws. Good.
So we say that we can interpret the words of the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) as being general regarding reports and what else? And rulings. And we say that whatever is in the law of the prophets in terms of rulings is for us except by evidence. But the question remains: how do we know that this is from the law of the previous prophets? That is the difficult part. How do we know?
We say that we have two ways regarding that:
The first way: the Book.
The second way: the Sunnah.
So whatever Allah has narrated in His Book about the previous nations is established, and whatever the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has narrated in what is authentic from him is also established. As for the rest, we neither affirm nor deny it, except if our law comes down affirming what the People of the Book have transmitted, then we affirm it, not because of their transmission, but because of what came in our law. Or if our law comes down denying what the People of the Book have transmitted, then we deny it, because our law has denied it. The Christians claim that the Messiah is the son of Allah. We say: that is a lie. The Jews say: Uzayr is the son of Allah. We say: that is a lie.
So the way to know what the previous prophets were upon is the Book and the Sunnah.
And the author's statement is better that we make it general, good, regarding what the messengers brought, to the end of it. Yes.
The correct view is that they are rulings for us, and that whatever is established regarding the previous prophets in terms of rulings is for us, except if our law comes down with a contrary ruling. If our law comes down with a contrary ruling, then it is according to that contrary ruling.
For example: prostration upon greeting was permissible in the law of Yusuf, Ya'qub, and his sons, when Yusuf entered upon them, he took in his two parents
And he raised his parents upon the throne, and they bowed to him in prostration. And he said, "O my father, this is the explanation of my vision
وَرَفَعَ أَبَوَيْهِ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ وَخَرُّوا لَهُ سُجَّدًا وَقَالَ يَا أَبَتِ هَذَا تَأْوِيلُ رُؤْيَايَCamels are forbidden for the Jews, right? Forbidden. They do not eat the camel. Yes, it is forbidden for the Jews.
And to those who are Jews We prohibited every animal of uncloven hoof
وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا كُلَّ ذِي ظُفُرٍThe student: ...?
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed. "Claw" means that which has no split. Whatever has a split in its hand is from those with claws. Good.
So we say that we can interpret the words of the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) as being general regarding reports and what else? And rulings. And we say that whatever is in the law of the prophets in terms of rulings is for us except by evidence. But the question remains: how do we know that this is from the law of the previous prophets? That is the difficult part. How do we know?
We say that we have two ways regarding that:
The first way: the Book.
The second way: the Sunnah.
So whatever Allah has narrated in His Book about the previous nations is established, and whatever the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has narrated in what is authentic from him is also established. As for the rest, we neither affirm nor deny it, except if our law comes down affirming what the People of the Book have transmitted, then we affirm it, not because of their transmission, but because of what came in our law. Or if our law comes down denying what the People of the Book have transmitted, then we deny it, because our law has denied it. The Christians claim that the Messiah is the son of Allah. We say: that is a lie. The Jews say: Uzayr is the son of Allah. We say: that is a lie.
So the way to know what the previous prophets were upon is the Book and the Sunnah.
And the author's statement is better that we make it general, good, regarding what the messengers brought, to the end of it. Yes.