What is your opinion on the fact that the meticulous scholars and jurists have tied many legal rulings to custom in these matters, which are not consistent and vary?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Our teacher.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The meticulous scholars and jurists tie many legal rulings to the custom and customs of people in these matters, which are not consistent and vary. How is that so?
The Shaykh: I do not believe in custom in the absolute sense very much. What I understand is that custom does not mean establishing new legal rulings, but rather there may be conventions in some terms, such as defining their meanings, and this definition varies from place to place or from country to country. I think that the jurists, or at least some of them, have addressed this specific aspect. For example, the word "meat" in its original linguistic meaning, as is clear to everyone, includes the flesh of all animals, whether wild or marine. If there is a custom in a certain country where, when "meat" is mentioned, fish meat is not intended, and someone takes an oath saying, "By Allah, I will not eat meat," here custom is applied. It is asked: Did he eat fish meat, did he break his oath or not? We say according to custom: if the custom of that country is that when they mention the word "meat," it means all meats, then he has broken his oath, whether he ate sea meat or land meat. Otherwise, that custom is taken into account. As for custom becoming contrary to some legal rulings and being given weight and proof, and applying to it His saying, the Exalted:[Al-A'raf 7:199], the difference between this and that is vast. This is what I have. In any case, if you have something else you have benefited from your studies, we would like to benefit from it as well.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : And you.
The questioner: If the custom is not consistent, for example, travel. People's customs regarding travel differ.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner: How is a legal ruling tied to something that is not consistent? Would travel, for example, be prescribed for me but not for another person?
The Shaykh: What is intended by general custom is the general custom in the general ruling. But there are matters that pertain to a specific person because a cause arose for him that did not arise for people in general. For example, moving from one country to another does not pertain to an individual but to the general custom. But this person who traveled, for example, did not intend to travel, so it is not said to have a relation to custom because he did not intend to travel. Similarly, if he intended to travel from one country to another, and in the other country he has a wife, or perhaps we say his father is there, or his family is there, or so on, he is a traveler between the two countries, and he is a resident in each of the two countries. But his companion who traveled with him may not be so when he arrives in the country where he stayed. This has no relation to custom, but the ruling changed due to what arose in the mind of each of the two travelers. So I think the question you raised earlier and its answer is very clear. Only the general custom is considered, meaning moving from one country to another. Even the common people who have no jurisprudence, what do they say? "We travel from here to Zarqa, for example," or do they say "We travel"? Perhaps a person might say, "I am traveling," and in that, he does not consider the general custom and uses a term that is neither customary nor, consequently, legal. In that case, no weight is given to such a statement. So I think your question, "How does the Lawgiver tie a ruling to a custom, and the custom differs?" If you mean it differs from time to time, that is correct. But what appeared from your question is that you mean from person to person or from people to people. The answer to this is what I mentioned earlier, which is the general custom. So I do not know if there is anything else.
The questioner: That which follows the general custom of people.
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner: The general public.
The Shaykh: Yes, the general public. Yes.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: The meticulous scholars and jurists tie many legal rulings to the custom and customs of people in these matters, which are not consistent and vary. How is that so?
The Shaykh: I do not believe in custom in the absolute sense very much. What I understand is that custom does not mean establishing new legal rulings, but rather there may be conventions in some terms, such as defining their meanings, and this definition varies from place to place or from country to country. I think that the jurists, or at least some of them, have addressed this specific aspect. For example, the word "meat" in its original linguistic meaning, as is clear to everyone, includes the flesh of all animals, whether wild or marine. If there is a custom in a certain country where, when "meat" is mentioned, fish meat is not intended, and someone takes an oath saying, "By Allah, I will not eat meat," here custom is applied. It is asked: Did he eat fish meat, did he break his oath or not? We say according to custom: if the custom of that country is that when they mention the word "meat," it means all meats, then he has broken his oath, whether he ate sea meat or land meat. Otherwise, that custom is taken into account. As for custom becoming contrary to some legal rulings and being given weight and proof, and applying to it His saying, the Exalted:
enjoin what is good, and turn away from the ignorant.
وَأْمُرْ بِالْعُرْفِ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْجَاهِلِينَThe questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : And you.
The questioner: If the custom is not consistent, for example, travel. People's customs regarding travel differ.
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner: How is a legal ruling tied to something that is not consistent? Would travel, for example, be prescribed for me but not for another person?
The Shaykh: What is intended by general custom is the general custom in the general ruling. But there are matters that pertain to a specific person because a cause arose for him that did not arise for people in general. For example, moving from one country to another does not pertain to an individual but to the general custom. But this person who traveled, for example, did not intend to travel, so it is not said to have a relation to custom because he did not intend to travel. Similarly, if he intended to travel from one country to another, and in the other country he has a wife, or perhaps we say his father is there, or his family is there, or so on, he is a traveler between the two countries, and he is a resident in each of the two countries. But his companion who traveled with him may not be so when he arrives in the country where he stayed. This has no relation to custom, but the ruling changed due to what arose in the mind of each of the two travelers. So I think the question you raised earlier and its answer is very clear. Only the general custom is considered, meaning moving from one country to another. Even the common people who have no jurisprudence, what do they say? "We travel from here to Zarqa, for example," or do they say "We travel"? Perhaps a person might say, "I am traveling," and in that, he does not consider the general custom and uses a term that is neither customary nor, consequently, legal. In that case, no weight is given to such a statement. So I think your question, "How does the Lawgiver tie a ruling to a custom, and the custom differs?" If you mean it differs from time to time, that is correct. But what appeared from your question is that you mean from person to person or from people to people. The answer to this is what I mentioned earlier, which is the general custom. So I do not know if there is anything else.
The questioner: That which follows the general custom of people.
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner: The general public.
The Shaykh: Yes, the general public. Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.