Discussion regarding the hadith: (May he succeed, and his father, if he is truthful).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It contains a type of swearing by His attributes, because these verses indicate the perfection of power, dominion, greatness, and mercy. Yes, that is right, isn't it?
The questioner : It is cut from ... ... if that is possible, then on the sa' and this ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and yes, yes, that is correct. If there had been a complete contradiction, there would have been no harm.
The questioner : And the apparent view is that there is a contradiction.
The Shaykh : No, because that is a general statement .
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : Before the prohibition.
The Shaykh : This is the abrogation.
The questioner : ... how can they contradict.
The Shaykh : No, he says.
The questioner : But there is no contradiction between them.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, because "Do not swear by your fathers" is a general statement, and this is a specific one. That is to say, if it were, for example, reported regarding the same matter, we would say we prioritize the abrogating over the abrogated by way of preference.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it may be correct, but if it is said that this occurred from the Messenger, for us now, for us, there is no problem that swearing by other than Allah is forbidden. But now we want to answer regarding the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding an event that occurred. As for saying that we contradict the hadith with it, we do not contradict the hadith with it, but we want to follow a methodology that clarifies to us what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, even though he prohibited it. As for the legal ruling, there is no doubt that we are certain that it is not permissible.
The questioner : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : They explained that, saying that after this, it is in his right, and we mentioned yesterday that we objected to this with this thing.
The questioner : Regarding the narration ... is not understood, the understood ... became, by Allah.
The Shaykh : Yes, you, if this is established, everything is finished. If it is established that it is not preserved, then everything is finished, but it is preserved.
The questioner : No, the other narration is preserved, by Allah ... .
The Shaykh : I say, yes, if the path is established such that it contradicts this, meaning two trustworthy narrators contradict each other, for example, and one side is preferred, by Allah, the matter is finished.
The questioner : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... and it is Isma'il ibn Ja'far with the wording he said, and this is more appropriate than the narration of the one who narrated from him with the wording because it ... ..
The Shaykh : Because it is what?
The questioner : Because it is a denounced wording.
The Shaykh : Because it is?
The questioner : A denounced wording.
Another questioner : Denounced.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : The authentic athar reject it, and it did not occur in Malik's narration at all.
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is present in "Sahih al-Bukhari", al-Bukhari narrated it and established it in his Sahih.
The Shaykh : But ... .
The Shaykh : And his father.
The questioner : The same narrator mentioned it, by Allah, the narration ..
The Shaykh : And in any case, it is possible from him two narrations, but if the narrator, by Allah, is more trustworthy than the one who narrated "and his father," praise be to Allah, the problem is gone. And we now have answers, some of which, as you see, are sound. The intention now is not to say that swearing by fathers is abrogated or permissible. No, we do not say that the prohibition of swearing by fathers is abrogated or permissible. The ruling now is prohibition in all cases, but we want to know an exit for this hadith that was reported. If it is correct that this wording is anomalous and not preserved, then we are relieved, praise be to Allah, and there is no need for all these answers. And if it is correct, then these are its answers.
The questioner : ... al-Bukhari ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, it is in al-Bukhari, yes?
The questioner : He answered ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar answered ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : To it is?
The questioner : .
The Shaykh : In any case, I remember that it is in al-Bukhari, and I have not reviewed it yet, meaning from a previous time. Yes? What?
The questioner : Is it not in Muslim?
The Shaykh : I do not know, by Allah, about Muslim, but it is in al-Bukhari.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, now one aspect is sufficient, because the ruling by it is considered not applicable. Now it is not applicable, because the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah is a fixed and decisive matter, and there is no confusion in it, and it must be acted upon. This is from the practical side. But I told you how we derive what was reported from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) only. As for saying that it means he may swear, this is not permissible.
The questioner : It is cut from ... ... if that is possible, then on the sa' and this ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and yes, yes, that is correct. If there had been a complete contradiction, there would have been no harm.
The questioner : And the apparent view is that there is a contradiction.
The Shaykh : No, because that is a general statement
Do not swear by your fathers
لا تحلفوا بآبائكمThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : Before the prohibition.
The Shaykh : This is the abrogation.
The questioner : ... how can they contradict.
The Shaykh : No, he says.
The questioner : But there is no contradiction between them.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, because "Do not swear by your fathers" is a general statement, and this is a specific one. That is to say, if it were, for example, reported regarding the same matter, we would say we prioritize the abrogating over the abrogated by way of preference.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it may be correct, but if it is said that this occurred from the Messenger, for us now, for us, there is no problem that swearing by other than Allah is forbidden. But now we want to answer regarding the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding an event that occurred. As for saying that we contradict the hadith with it, we do not contradict the hadith with it, but we want to follow a methodology that clarifies to us what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, even though he prohibited it. As for the legal ruling, there is no doubt that we are certain that it is not permissible.
The questioner : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : They explained that, saying that after this, it is in his right, and we mentioned yesterday that we objected to this with this thing.
The questioner : Regarding the narration ...
And his father
وأبيهThe Shaykh : Yes, you, if this is established, everything is finished. If it is established that it is not preserved, then everything is finished, but it is preserved.
The questioner : No, the other narration is preserved, by Allah ... .
The Shaykh : I say, yes, if the path is established
By Allah, if he is truthful
والله إن صدقThe questioner : Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... and it is Isma'il ibn Ja'far with the wording
May he succeed, by Allah, if he is truthful
أفلح والله إن صدقHe and his father
أفلح وأبيهThe Shaykh : Because it is what?
The questioner : Because it is a denounced wording.
The Shaykh : Because it is?
The questioner : A denounced wording.
Another questioner : Denounced.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : The authentic athar reject it, and it did not occur in Malik's narration at all.
The Shaykh : Yes, but it is present in "Sahih al-Bukhari", al-Bukhari narrated it and established it in his Sahih.
The Shaykh : But ... .
The Shaykh : And his father.
The questioner : The same narrator mentioned it, by Allah, the narration ..
The Shaykh : And in any case, it is possible from him two narrations, but if the narrator, by Allah, is more trustworthy than the one who narrated "and his father," praise be to Allah, the problem is gone. And we now have answers, some of which, as you see, are sound. The intention now is not to say that swearing by fathers is abrogated or permissible. No, we do not say that the prohibition of swearing by fathers is abrogated or permissible. The ruling now is prohibition in all cases, but we want to know an exit for this hadith that was reported. If it is correct that this wording is anomalous and not preserved, then we are relieved, praise be to Allah, and there is no need for all these answers. And if it is correct, then these are its answers.
The questioner : ... al-Bukhari ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, it is in al-Bukhari, yes?
The questioner : He answered ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar answered ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : To it is?
The questioner :
He and his father
أفلح وأبيهThe Shaykh : In any case, I remember that it is in al-Bukhari, and I have not reviewed it yet, meaning from a previous time. Yes? What?
The questioner : Is it not in Muslim?
The Shaykh : I do not know, by Allah, about Muslim, but it is in al-Bukhari.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, now one aspect is sufficient, because the ruling by it is considered not applicable. Now it is not applicable, because the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah is a fixed and decisive matter, and there is no confusion in it, and it must be acted upon. This is from the practical side. But I told you how we derive what was reported from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) only. As for saying that it means he may swear, this is not permissible.