Explanation of the author's statement: "And the literal is that which has not been dominated by its figurative meaning, such as meat. So if he swore not to eat meat and then ate fat or marrow or liver or the like, he does not break his oath."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The literal, he says, "is that which—I have the right to explain this—is that which has not been dominated by its figurative meaning, is that correct with you?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : "It is that which has not been dominated by its figurative meaning, such as meat.
First, we must know that the scholars mentioned that it is a defect to define something by negation or by non-existence, because a definition by negation or non-existence does not provide the image, as it implies the removal of this negated thing, but what takes its place? If it is said "has not been dominated by its figurative meaning," this is a definition by negation, and it does not specify the defined term. The defined term must be through affirmation and positivity, whereas negation is, as it is said, negation and non-existence. Therefore, the correct definition of the literal is to say: it is the term used in its linguistic reality. This is the definition: used in the linguistic reality, or if you wish, say: the term used in what it was placed for linguistically. This is the literal. The term, what is it? Used in what it was placed for linguistically; this is the literal. If this term does not have a legal reality, we take it to the linguistic reality. Its example is meat. The word "meat" is the reality of the lean meat, do you know lean meat? Good, this is meat in the linguistic reality. As for the tripe, liver, spleen, fat, suet, and the like, these are not meat according to the language, what? Arabic. And for this reason, the author said: if he swore not to eat meat and then ate fat, he said, "By Allah, I will never eat meat," and they brought him the hump of a camel and he ate it until he was full from this hump. Does he break his oath or not?
The questioner : He does not break his oath.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because this is not meat in the Arabic language; this is fat. Allah the Exalted said:[Al-An'am 6:146] And this implies that fats are not meats, but rather they are part of the animal. And for this reason, He said: [Al-An'am 6:146] So this man does not break his oath. Likewise, if he ate marrow, is marrow eaten?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, if he ate marrow, having said, "By Allah, I will not eat meat," and he ate marrow, he does not break his oath, because marrow is not called meat. Did he eat liver? He does not break his oath either, because the liver in the Arabic language is not meat. Did he eat something similar, such as the kidney, tripe, intestines, spleen, and the like? There are many things of this kind; these are not called meat, so he does not break his oath by prioritizing why? The Arabic language, the linguistic reality, prioritizing the linguistic reality. Good, but if it is known that the purpose of that is to avoid fat, if his intention was to avoid fat and he ate from these things.
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : Yes? He breaks his oath, because the intention is prior. An example of that is a sick man to whom the doctor said, "Do not eat meat," why? To avoid fat. So if he eats fat, it becomes more harmful than meat or marrow or the like; it is more harmful than meat. So if it is known that the intended thing is to avoid what? Fat, then he breaks his oath by eating these things. Good, and if, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is the meat of the head; in their view, it is not meat.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, but in the language, if I advise you to bring me meat and I say, "So-and-so, go buy me meat," and you go and collect from the meats of the heads, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It appears it is not meat, and for this reason it differs from the other meat, even in its taste and its nature, so it is different, yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : "It is that which has not been dominated by its figurative meaning, such as meat.
First, we must know that the scholars mentioned that it is a defect to define something by negation or by non-existence, because a definition by negation or non-existence does not provide the image, as it implies the removal of this negated thing, but what takes its place? If it is said "has not been dominated by its figurative meaning," this is a definition by negation, and it does not specify the defined term. The defined term must be through affirmation and positivity, whereas negation is, as it is said, negation and non-existence. Therefore, the correct definition of the literal is to say: it is the term used in its linguistic reality. This is the definition: used in the linguistic reality, or if you wish, say: the term used in what it was placed for linguistically. This is the literal. The term, what is it? Used in what it was placed for linguistically; this is the literal. If this term does not have a legal reality, we take it to the linguistic reality. Its example is meat. The word "meat" is the reality of the lean meat, do you know lean meat? Good, this is meat in the linguistic reality. As for the tripe, liver, spleen, fat, suet, and the like, these are not meat according to the language, what? Arabic. And for this reason, the author said: if he swore not to eat meat and then ate fat, he said, "By Allah, I will never eat meat," and they brought him the hump of a camel and he ate it until he was full from this hump. Does he break his oath or not?
The questioner : He does not break his oath.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because this is not meat in the Arabic language; this is fat. Allah the Exalted said:
And to those who are Jews We prohibited every animal of uncloven hoof; and of the cattle and the sheep We prohibited to them their fat
وعلى الذين هادوا حرّمنا كل ظفر ومن البقر والغنم حرّمنا عليهم شحومهماand of the cattle and the sheep We prohibited to them their fat
ومن البقر والغنم حرّمنا عليهم شحومهماThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, if he ate marrow, having said, "By Allah, I will not eat meat," and he ate marrow, he does not break his oath, because marrow is not called meat. Did he eat liver? He does not break his oath either, because the liver in the Arabic language is not meat. Did he eat something similar, such as the kidney, tripe, intestines, spleen, and the like? There are many things of this kind; these are not called meat, so he does not break his oath by prioritizing why? The Arabic language, the linguistic reality, prioritizing the linguistic reality. Good, but if it is known that the purpose of that is to avoid fat, if his intention was to avoid fat and he ate from these things.
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : Yes? He breaks his oath, because the intention is prior. An example of that is a sick man to whom the doctor said, "Do not eat meat," why? To avoid fat. So if he eats fat, it becomes more harmful than meat or marrow or the like; it is more harmful than meat. So if it is known that the intended thing is to avoid what? Fat, then he breaks his oath by eating these things. Good, and if, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is the meat of the head; in their view, it is not meat.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, but in the language, if I advise you to bring me meat and I say, "So-and-so, go buy me meat," and you go and collect from the meats of the heads, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It appears it is not meat, and for this reason it differs from the other meat, even in its taste and its nature, so it is different, yes.