Does the prohibition imply the invalidity of the prohibited matter?

The questioner : The other question says: Does the prohibition imply the invalidity of the prohibited matter?

The Shaykh : It is the original form.

The questioner : And what is the ruling on the prayer of one who wears his ihram in the style of the two-shouldered (i'tiqan), based on the narration of the two-shouldered, in the hadith: .

The Shaykh : Excuse me, are these two questions or one question?

The questioner : By Allah, it seems they are two questions.

The Shaykh : Two questions! Stick to the first question, what is it?

The questioner : Does the prohibition imply the invalidity of the prohibited matter?! You have answered this.

The Shaykh : I say: Yes, with some detail. The original rule is that prohibition implies invalidity and nullity, except where evidence stands for the contrary. Most prohibitions are like this. Then this evidence may be clear, or it may be derived. So let us bring the clear example, because it comes to mind now, and I say: His saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . From this hadith we benefit from two points, and I am concerned with one of them now, because it relates to clarifying that the other hadith, which is from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: , and it is supported by the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud: . This prohibition here: the original rule is that it implies invalidity, but the first hadith clarified that the sale is valid, but the excess is invalid. Is this clear? So this is my answer to the first question.