The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "Moreover, abrogation requires knowledge of the chronology, and that is not established by mere probability."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Moreover, abrogation requires knowledge of the chronology, and that is not established by mere probability.
The Shaykh : That abrogation referred to is not established by probability. One might say, "It is possible that it is abrogated." Fine, but that is not sufficient. We must know that the abrogating text came later, because abrogation has two conditions that are necessary. The first is the impossibility of reconciling the texts. If reconciliation is possible in any way, such as by specification, restriction, or the like, then we do not resort to abrogation, because abrogation is a grave matter, as it entails affirming the rejection of one of the texts. Note that this is not a trivial matter. Abrogation means that you have nullified one of the texts, discarded it, and rejected it. This requires proof of this matter, so another condition is necessary: knowing that this came after that. That is, what is claimed to be the abrogating text must be after what was abrogated. What is claimed to be the abrogating text must be after what was abrogated. It must be after what was abrogated. If we do not know this, then there is no abrogation. But what is our position if abrogation is not established and reconciliation is impossible? We do not resort to another path before pausing. Before pausing, we look at which is stronger, and the methods of determining the stronger position are known among the scholars of usul al-fiqh and among the hadith scholars. If the stronger position is not clarified, then at that point it is obligatory to pause, and we say, "Allah knows best." However, this may be problematic in practice, because the common person is not satisfied if you say, "I am pausing." He will say, "Give us a ruling. What do we do in this situation?" It appears, and Allah knows best, that we resort to ijtihad and take the precautionary measure or what aligns with the Shari'ah. What aligns with the Shari'ah is the easier path, and the precautionary measure is the heavier one. Here, it is necessary to note that reaching the stage of pausing is not possible considering the text, but it is possible considering the person, considering the one who argues. Considering the evidence, it is not possible, but considering the one who argues, it is possible. This occurs when the texts conflict for him, and that may be due to his deficiency, his negligence, his bad intention, or his poor understanding.
The questioner : Wearing it, rather, he approved it with a warning against leaving off the zakah. If wearing it had been forbidden, he would have ordered its removal and warned against wearing it. Moreover, abrogation requires knowledge of the chronology, and that is not established by mere probability. Then, even if we assume that it was during the prohibition, the hadiths mentioned indicate permissibility on the condition of paying the zakah. There is no evidence that this condition was lifted, nor that it was made absolutely permissible, meaning without zakah. If it is said:
The Shaykh : It is not without zakah in my view.
The questioner : In my view.
The Shaykh : Is it printed or a manuscript?
The questioner : It is printed.
The Shaykh : In any case, it is... can it be... the important thing is that it did not...
Here we answered that according to the one who said that the warning was when wearing it was forbidden. We answered that this does not hold, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not forbid wearing it, but rather approved it with a warning against leaving off the zakah. If it had been haram, he would have warned against wearing it and forbidden it. At that point, this answer does not hold. Also, if it is said that abrogation occurred when it was forbidden and then it was abrogated to permissibility, it requires evidence such that we know the later text and reconciliation is impossible, because abrogation has two conditions that are necessary: the first is the impossibility of reconciliation, and the second is knowledge of the later text. Then, even if we assume that it was during the prohibition, the hadiths mentioned, the hadith of the woman with her daughter, indicate permissibility on the condition of paying the zakah. At that point, we say, let us assume that this was during the prohibition. Then the evidence indicating permissibility restricts it by paying the zakah, and there is no evidence that this condition was lifted and that it was made permissible, meaning the permissibility of wearing it is absolute. With this, this assumption falls, namely that it was during the prohibition. Yes.
The Shaykh : That abrogation referred to is not established by probability. One might say, "It is possible that it is abrogated." Fine, but that is not sufficient. We must know that the abrogating text came later, because abrogation has two conditions that are necessary. The first is the impossibility of reconciling the texts. If reconciliation is possible in any way, such as by specification, restriction, or the like, then we do not resort to abrogation, because abrogation is a grave matter, as it entails affirming the rejection of one of the texts. Note that this is not a trivial matter. Abrogation means that you have nullified one of the texts, discarded it, and rejected it. This requires proof of this matter, so another condition is necessary: knowing that this came after that. That is, what is claimed to be the abrogating text must be after what was abrogated. What is claimed to be the abrogating text must be after what was abrogated. It must be after what was abrogated. If we do not know this, then there is no abrogation. But what is our position if abrogation is not established and reconciliation is impossible? We do not resort to another path before pausing. Before pausing, we look at which is stronger, and the methods of determining the stronger position are known among the scholars of usul al-fiqh and among the hadith scholars. If the stronger position is not clarified, then at that point it is obligatory to pause, and we say, "Allah knows best." However, this may be problematic in practice, because the common person is not satisfied if you say, "I am pausing." He will say, "Give us a ruling. What do we do in this situation?" It appears, and Allah knows best, that we resort to ijtihad and take the precautionary measure or what aligns with the Shari'ah. What aligns with the Shari'ah is the easier path, and the precautionary measure is the heavier one. Here, it is necessary to note that reaching the stage of pausing is not possible considering the text, but it is possible considering the person, considering the one who argues. Considering the evidence, it is not possible, but considering the one who argues, it is possible. This occurs when the texts conflict for him, and that may be due to his deficiency, his negligence, his bad intention, or his poor understanding.
The questioner : Wearing it, rather, he approved it with a warning against leaving off the zakah. If wearing it had been forbidden, he would have ordered its removal and warned against wearing it. Moreover, abrogation requires knowledge of the chronology, and that is not established by mere probability. Then, even if we assume that it was during the prohibition, the hadiths mentioned indicate permissibility on the condition of paying the zakah. There is no evidence that this condition was lifted, nor that it was made absolutely permissible, meaning without zakah. If it is said:
The Shaykh : It is not without zakah in my view.
The questioner : In my view.
The Shaykh : Is it printed or a manuscript?
The questioner : It is printed.
The Shaykh : In any case, it is... can it be... the important thing is that it did not...
Here we answered that according to the one who said that the warning was when wearing it was forbidden. We answered that this does not hold, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not forbid wearing it, but rather approved it with a warning against leaving off the zakah. If it had been haram, he would have warned against wearing it and forbidden it. At that point, this answer does not hold. Also, if it is said that abrogation occurred when it was forbidden and then it was abrogated to permissibility, it requires evidence such that we know the later text and reconciliation is impossible, because abrogation has two conditions that are necessary: the first is the impossibility of reconciliation, and the second is knowledge of the later text. Then, even if we assume that it was during the prohibition, the hadiths mentioned, the hadith of the woman with her daughter, indicate permissibility on the condition of paying the zakah. At that point, we say, let us assume that this was during the prohibition. Then the evidence indicating permissibility restricts it by paying the zakah, and there is no evidence that this condition was lifted and that it was made permissible, meaning the permissibility of wearing it is absolute. With this, this assumption falls, namely that it was during the prohibition. Yes.