Explanation of the author's statement: "As for what follows, this is a concise work in jurisprudence"

The Shaykh : Then the author said: "As for what follows, this is a concise work in jurisprudence". "As for what follows" is a phrase used when entering into the subject matter that one intends to address. It is used to introduce the topic. As for the claim by some that it is a phrase used to transition from one style to another, this is incorrect, because scholars constantly move from one style to another without using "as for what follows." However, we say it is used when entering into the core of the subject for which the sermon was delivered, for example: "As for what follows". As for its grammatical parsing, its parsing is one of the most interesting matters. We said that its parsing is that "ama" is a substitute for a condition, and the verb of the condition is... the estimation is "whatever may be the case after that, this is a concise work." So here, "ama" means "whatever may be the case," and "ba'd" (after) is an adverb of time connected to the deleted verb "kana" (was) along with its condition. It is built on the damma (vowel) in the position of the object because the thing to which it is added was deleted, and its meaning was intended. Yes, and these adverbs like "ba'd" and its sisters, when the thing to which they are added is deleted and its meaning is intended, are built on the damma, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: "As for what follows, this is a concise work in jurisprudence". "Mukhtasar" (concise) is of the form "mifta'il," so it is a passive participle. The scholars said that "al-mukhtasar" is that which is few in its wording but much in its meaning; that is, its wording is little, but its meaning is great. And his saying: "in jurisprudence". Linguistically, "fiqh" means understanding. From this is the saying of Allah the Exalted: . And this negation is correct, meaning we do not understand their glorification. meaning we do not understand. This negation is correct. It appears that it is not correct, but it is a denial. Yes, very well. So, linguistically, "fiqh" is understanding. And in the Shari'ah, the Shari'ah. And it is better to say, in the technical sense, if we say in the Shari'ah, we say that "fiqh" is the knowledge of the rulings of Allah, both creedal and practical. The knowledge of the rulings of Allah the Exalted, the creedal and the practical. This is in the Shari'ah, because "fiqh" in the Shari'ah is not specific to the actions of the accountable or to the practical rulings, but it includes even the creedal rulings. The creedal rulings. So much so that the people of knowledge say that the science of creed is the greatest "fiqh." The greatest "fiqh" and the most excellent. And this is true, because you do not worship the Worshipped One except after knowing His oneness, His lordship, His divinity, His names, and His attributes. Otherwise, how would you worship the Unknown? That is not possible. Therefore, the first foundation is tawhid (the oneness of Allah). And it is truly called the greatest "fiqh." But the author's intention here with "in jurisprudence" is the technical "fiqh." What is the technical "fiqh"? The scholars say it is the knowledge of the practical rulings with their detailed evidence. "Fiqh" is the knowledge of the practical rulings with their detailed evidence. We said "knowledge," or we say "ilm" (science). And "al-ahkam" (rulings), which is better?

The questioner : Knowledge.

The Shaykh : Is it knowledge of the cause?

The questioner : Because every knowledge... doubt is the first of it.

The Shaykh : Yes, and "fiqh" is either knowledge or doubt. Not every jurisprudential issue is one of certain knowledge; there are many issues that are based on doubt. This is common in issues of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), where a person does not reach the level of certainty. But Allah does not burden a soul except with what it can bear. For this reason, we express it as "knowledge" and not as "ilm" (science). And we encompass both science and doubt by saying that the issues of "fiqh" are scientific and... and doubtful. "Fiqh" is the knowledge of the practical rulings. "Practical" is said to exclude the creedal rulings, so these do not enter into the technical definition, although they enter into the Shari'ah definition. And our saying "with their detailed evidence" is said to exclude the principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), because the principles of jurisprudence do not define "fiqh" with its detailed evidence, but they define general rules, and perhaps they bring up a detailed issue for illustration only. And "knowledge" from our saying "with their evidence" in the definition of the knowledge of the practical rulings with their evidence, means that the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence (mقلid) is not a jurist. Why? Because he does not know them with their evidence. The most he can do is tell you, "It is in the book." So the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence is not a jurist. And Ibn 'Abd al-Barr transmitted the consensus of the scholars that the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence is not among the scholars. And by this, we know the importance of knowing the evidence, and that the student of knowledge must receive the issues with their evidence so that he may be one who combines true knowledge. And this is what will save him with Allah the Mighty and Majestic, because Allah will say to him on the Day of Resurrection, "What did you answer?" Or, "Do I know what you answered? You answered so-and-so the author, and so-and-so the author." So it is necessary that we know what the messengers said. But following a scholar without knowing his evidence in cases of dire necessity is permissible, by the saying of Allah the Exalted: . And where do we go if we are unable to know the truth by its evidence? We must ask. For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Following a scholar without knowing his evidence is like eating carrion". When is it permissible? In cases of dire necessity. And without dire necessity, it is not permissible. If a person is able to know the ruling by its evidence, he does not need to follow a scholar without knowing his evidence. Very well, so "fiqh" has three definitions: linguistic, Shari'ah, and technical. What is the meaning of the linguistic one? Understanding. Very well, so "fiqh" in the Shari'ah... "Fiqh" has three definitions: linguistic, Shari'ah, and technical. In the linguistic sense, it is understanding. In the Shari'ah sense, it is the knowledge of the creedal and practical rulings of the Shari'ah. And the technical sense is the knowledge of the practical rulings with their detailed evidence. Yes.