YouTube Transcript:
شرح متن الورقات للشيخ حسن بخاري1

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most

Merciful. Praise be to Allah, abundant, good, blessed praise that

fills the heavens and the earth and what is between them and what

our Lord wills of anything after that. I

praise Him, the Most High, and I thank Him, and I seek His aid and forgiveness. I bear witness that there is no god

but Allah, alone, without partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the servant and Messenger of Allah, His chosen one and His intimate friend. O Allah, send prayers and

peace upon him and his family and companions and those who

follow them in righteousness until the Day of Judgment. As for what follows, this

is the first of our meetings, students of

knowledge, in studying the text of Mukhtasar al-Waraqat by Imam al-

Haramayn Abu al-Ma’ali al-Juwayni,

may Allah have mercy on him. These six or seven upcoming meetings, God willing, we will begin tonight by

mentioning introductions before our study of this book, and they are

about three points that I believe it is important

to address before our study of such a book. I do

not want in these introductions to talk

about the definition of knowledge and its principles that are

usually addressed because the author, may Allah have mercy on him,

will come to them. However, I wanted to talk about the position of this

knowledge as a whole among the Islamic sciences and about Imam al-

Haramayn, may Allah have mercy on him, and about his book. The papers

began with the subject of this science, the science of the principles of jurisprudence and

the need of students of knowledge for it, and as you know, it is one of the

branches of the sciences of God. What is meant by the sciences of God are those

sciences in which the student of knowledge finds a means to reach the sciences

intended for

themselves, I mean that the religious sciences include what is intended for itself, such as the

interpretation of the Book of God Almighty and the narration of the hadith of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, and the science of the legal

rulings, which is jurisprudence. These are sciences

intended for themselves, meaning that the student of knowledge obtains knowledge for the scientific

fruit that he

obtains. The other part of the religious sciences is the

sciences of God, and the sciences of God are the sciences that

gain the student of knowledge knowledge by which he is able to understand the

sciences, and they are what is called in the

religious sciences the principles of knowledge. You would say the principles of

hadith, the principles of interpretation, the principles of jurisprudence, and grammar. It

is also from the sciences of God because it enables you to

understand the language and deal with the Book of God and the Sunnah of the Messenger of

God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace. I do not

want to be long-winded, but it is sufficient for us to understand that the science of the

principles of jurisprudence is one of the sciences of God. We will emphasize

this meaning and clarify in order for our study of

the sciences of God to be on the correct method, which is The

student of knowledge deals with the sciences of God. So it is

absolutely incorrect for someone to deal with a science of the sciences of

God, such as the principles of jurisprudence, to deal with sciences

intended for themselves. The science of God is not that in which the

definition, division, types, and

terminology are preserved, and then he does not understand how to employ this

science in what it was established for. The science of the principles of jurisprudence, as we will come to you with its

definition shortly in the words of the author,

may God have mercy on him, is a science that is

intended to be a foundation for jurisprudence, that is, to be built upon it. So unless this science helps you, O student of knowledge, because it enables you to understand

jurisprudence, study it, and acquire it, so that it is on a

path and you are on a path and you study the principles of jurisprudence, and you do not feel that it develops your ability to understand jurisprudence, nor does it nourish

nourish

your jurisprudence, nor does it help you with your ability to deduce.

Whenever you feel that your study of the science of the principles of jurisprudence does not help you

with that, then know that there is a flaw in your dealing with this

science, because it is necessary that this science, in

its outcome and on the path of its study, be at the end

or during it possible for whoever

studies it to attain the knowledge that he wants to reach. The principles of jurisprudence

should lead you to jurisprudence. The principles of

interpretation should lead you to…

Interpretation, but if you study the principles of interpretation and then do not find that

you have the ability to interpret, nor to understand the Book of God, nor to

apply the rules to reach the meanings of the verses,

then there is a defect in your study of the method. I will reveal the cover

more clearly to say that many of those seeking knowledge

deal with the sciences of God and the principles of jurisprudence are one of

them. They deal with it in a way of memorization, division, and

definitions. Then they do not care much about employing the

rules of this science and its issues in a practical application that

develops in them the ability to understand, the ability to deduce, and

makes them jurists with

practice, training, and continuous contemplation. This is a defect that

must be overcome. How long will one of us remain in studying the

science of the principles of jurisprudence confined to defining the general, its

forms, and its meanings, and to the forms of the command, its types, the conditions of its

issues, the rulings of each issue, and its forms according to

what the scholars of the principles have decided? Then if you put before him the saying of the

Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, “Whoever sells a palm tree

after it has pollinated, he has its fruit unless the

buyer stipulates something,” for example, and you say to him, “Where are the forms of generality? What is the

derived ruling? And where is the specification? And in the hadith there is a defect that he

indicated.” To the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace,

where is it and what kind of reference is it to

the cause? He opens his mouth as if he has not studied anything. This

defect should be overcome by our study of the

issues of this science going beyond the issue of memorizing the division,

types, definitions, and so on. It should

be directed to studying the science with the mind to

reach the rule and the way to use it and

practice this constantly because with the days the ability

grows and dominates. The

science of the principles of jurisprudence in this form and in this meaning that I have

indicated is a noble, noble science because it establishes

in the student of knowledge an ability that enables him to deal with the

legal texts. Thus, it is not specific to jurisprudence,

meaning the specialist in belief, the specialist in

interpretation, the specialist in hadith, and the specialist in

jurisprudence. Look, do not all the legal sciences

revolve around the legal texts and evidence? If a

science of the sciences, which is the principles of jurisprudence, gives you the ability,

the capacity, and the ability to deal with the

legal texts, whether you want from them the rulings of

beliefs, or the interpretation of the meanings of the Book of God, or the explanation of the

hadith of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, or the derivation of

legal rulings, it remains this

science that enables you to deal with the evidence. In a

correct way, this is what is related to this science, and I do not need to

say that the people of knowledge were and still

mention his honor, position, status, and great impact

on the lives of students of

knowledge. The other point in these introductions is

talking about the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, may God have mercy on him, Imam al-Juwayni

Abu al-Ma’ali Abd al-Malik ibn

Abdullah ibn Yusuf al-Juwayni, may God have mercy on him.

Imam al-Juwayni, the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, the

Sheikh of the Shafi’is, Ibn

Sabur, came to the Hijaz, performed Hajj, and lived in Mecca and Medina for

four years. It is said that he was the leader of the Muslims in the Two Holy

Mosques, and that is why he was called the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques for the period of his

four-year stay in Mecca and Medina. It was also said that he lived between

Mecca and Medina for four years, and

people benefited from him and sought knowledge from him, so he attained the

imamate in these two blessed places, so he was

called the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques. Whatever it was, the scholarly opinion about

him is that he spent four years living between Mecca and

Medina, may God have mercy on him. The Imam of the Two Holy Mosques is one of the

imams of Islam in jurisprudence, knowledge, insight, deduction, and

also enriched the Islamic legal library

with abundant and plentiful knowledge that distinguishes the Imam Al-Haramayn, may

God have mercy on him, in the path of the science of Usul al-Fiqh in

particular, has a huge legacy

represented in a number of scientific heritage that served the

Usul al-Fiqh, the most famous of which are three books: the book Al-Waraqat,

which is the small, concise text that is in

our hands; the book

Al-Talkhees, in which he summarized the greatest book written on the Usul al-

Fiqh in Islam, as Al-Subki and others say,

which is the book Al-Taqrib wa Al-Irshad by Judge Abu Bakr Al-

Baqillani, may God have mercy on him; and the third book is the

book Al-Burhan, which made Imam Al-Haramayn famous and

spread throughout the world east and west. Al-Subki,

may God have mercy on him, called it the riddle of the nation, and he was very proud of the

Burhan of Imam Al-Haramayn, and he deserved that, because the Burhan of Imam Al-

Haramayn in the Usul al-Fiqh is a unique, precious gem. You will

not find in the history of the nation during 1400

years that you will not find a book written on Usul

similar to Al-Burhan. The scholars who came after

Imam Al-Hurr Ramin were unable to write a book like Al-Burhan, whether in its

strength and solidity, or in its precision and clarity of its issues, or

in its language and style. Indeed, scholars were unable to

formulate a book in a scientific language. In a specialized science like the

principles of jurisprudence, with a sublime, refined literary language, it is as if you are

reading an explanation of one of the poetic Mu’allaqat. A

refined literary language and a refined,

skilled linguistic soul. Whoever reads the book Al-Burhan will be lost. Should he follow the idea to understand it or cite the wording to enjoy its sweetness and open the dictionaries to explain some meanings? Words from the eloquent language and refined Arabic, for which you really need to

open the dictionaries. If it were not for the fact that the researcher Dr. Abdul-

Azim Al-Deeb, may God have mercy on him, greatly served the text of the

book by explaining some of its words, students of knowledge would have continued to

open Al-Burhan and next to it some meanings to

explain some of its words, may God have mercy on

him. The third book is Al-Waraqat, as I said. As for Al-

Talkhees and Al-Waraqat, they are a book that does not represent the opinion of the

Imam of the Two Holy Mosques in

the form that represents his school of thought. Al-Waraqat is an abridged book, and we will explain,

God willing, during this course, when a

student of knowledge wants to attribute an opinion to the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques or a

school of thought in the principles of jurisprudence, he returns to Al-Burhan.

As for Al-Waraqat, it is an abridged text, and on it, I mean, some

of the notes and considerations that we will mention now.

As for Al-Talkhees, it is all that In it, he preserved for us the book of Al-

Taqreeb and Al-Irshad by Judge Abu Bakr Al-

Baqillani, and Judge Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani was the first to

write in the science of the principles of jurisprudence in a

comprehensive and comprehensive manner, including the chapters of the issues of the principles and its issues

in the manner that was settled upon by the

authorship of Judge Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani. He wrote Al-

Taqreeb and Al-Irshad in three levels: Al-Taqreeb and Al-

Irshad Al-Sagheer, Al-Taqreeb and Al-Irshad Al-Awsat, and Al-Taqreeb and Al-

Irshad Al-Kabeer. Imam Al-Haramayn, may

because when you find that Imam Al-Haramayn has imbibed Al-

Baqillani’s thought and strengthened his method in the principles until he

summarized it and comprehended it, you can say that he combined more than one

advantage, including his acquisition of the knowledge of Judge Abu Bakr

Al-Baqillani and his school of thought in the principles, which is a noble and reliable school of thought, and

he also at the same time, I mean Imam Al-Haramayn,

represents a school of

principles because one of the

greatest of those who produced under his hand and of the

scholars of the nation, Imam Al-Ghazali, may God have mercy on him, is his

direct student, the author of Al-Mustasfa, Hujjat Al-Islam

Muhammad bin Muhammad Al-Ghazali Abu Hamid, is one

of the great students of Imam Al-Haramayn. So when we look at the

science of principles and we see that Al-Burhan book is one of the

approved books and the hospital as well and it is

one school that makes you feel the majesty of the position of the Imam of the Two

Holy Mosques, may God have mercy on him. We present this speech before our

study in order for us to have a sufficient and comprehensive view of

the book that you are reading and the

author that you are reading and his position among the scholars and

his position among the authors in this art in

particular. All of these are data that help you understand and

deal with the wording, the book, and the issues in a

sound way and a sound approach. The discussion remains about the

papers in particular, the papers of the Imam of the Two

Holy Mosques, papers as he said, may God have mercy on him, and as he

called them, and he is the one who said in his introduction: These papers,

these papers, he wanted to bring the issues of this

science closer in brief sentences. So they are not all the

issues of the science of Usul. This is first, and second, they do not

include the opinions of Usul in a

single issue. Third, they do not contain talk about the evidence for

evidence for

the rules or representation of them with branches of jurisprudence.

Fourth, they are not comprehensive in the sense that they give the student of

knowledge everything he needs about the issues of Usul. He wanted them, may

God have mercy on him, to be in the hands of the student of

knowledge, a reminder and an easy introduction. Therefore, it is

customary for students of knowledge in the methods of acquiring

knowledge and the ladders of systematic study that the

book Al-Waraqat be at the first level that the

student of knowledge studies when he studies the principles of jurisprudence,

as it is the first threshold upon which the

following steps can be built. The book Al-Waraqat of Imam al-Haramayn, may

God have mercy on him, did not become famous among students of knowledge until

late in the fifth or sixth century AH and

after, and its commentaries spread and multiplied, but in the

later centuries, the seventh century and after, the commentaries of Al-Waraqat multiplied,

but before that, it was not like that. The

book Al-Waraqat and its arrangement by Al-Amreeti and other

books that wanted to make such a book

in the hands of the beginner in studying knowledge and acquiring it remained an

introduction and a good entry point that is good to begin and start

with and build what comes after it on it. So, it is not appropriate if you

understand this speech in relation to Al-Waraqat, then we

must study this book in this way, in a

concise and brief manner, and this is our method in

the course, God willing. We will not digress in mentioning

issues that the author, may God have mercy on him, did not address, and I see

that this is correct in studying

concise texts. If he wants to expand, let him

study an extensive book and come to a text that has dealt with

such issues and discuss them. However, if he comes to a

concise book that its author wrote concisely and put it in this

manner, then you should study it in this manner. As for

digressing in mentioning issues that he did not mention or

delving into adding an appendix to issues that he dealt with in a

concise and abbreviated manner, all of that is a departure from the method of the

author, may God have mercy on him, or the method of the author of the book.

Finally, this book is also, as I said, a

first step that the seeker of knowledge should not limit himself to

and think that he has acquired a great deal in the issues of this

science. There are issues that Imam al-Haramayn, may

God have mercy on him, mentioned here in the papers that contradict or differ from what he

decided in another place, such as what he quotes in the summary, for

example, or in what he decided in the proof, so it is not appropriate to

assume a conflict between the two methods because, as I

understood, the papers are something that does not represent the school of Imam al-

Haramayn, which Imam al-Haramayn, may

God have mercy on him, one of the imams who combined jurisprudence and

principles, used as evidence, because some of the authors of principles were

immersed in classifying principles in the sense of

abstract theorizing and practicing it in Jurisprudence is not known or famous,

famous,

while you find an Imam like Imam al-Haramayn, may God have mercy on

him, who has a huge jurisprudential legacy, if it did not contain anything but the

end of the topic in which he classified the jurisprudence of al-Shafi’i, may

God have mercy on him, then it guides you to a deep jurisprudence and a

true Imam. So whoever writes about the principles of jurisprudence with this depth, you are

completely confident that he possessed from the gods and

from the tools of this science and its issues what gave him that

ability and solid scientific depth that helped him

decide issues with the depth, precision, ability and

rulings that you find in such an end of

this topic. The beginning of the book Al-Waraqat by Imam al-

Haramayn al-Juwayni, may God have mercy on him.

Yes, praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds, and may God’s prayers and peace be upon our

Master Muhammad, his family and all his companions. The definition of the

principles of jurisprudence. These are a few papers that include knowledge of chapters of the principles of jurisprudence.

This is composed of two separate parts. Okay, this is the beginning of the

author’s statement, may God have mercy on him. These are a few papers that

include knowledge of chapters of the principles of jurisprudence. He, may

God have mercy on him, stated his methodology in the message and his method

in it, and what he wanted. He said these are a few papers

when he said Papers by which he intended to reduce, for the

sound feminine plural is from the plurals of paucity according to Sibawayh, and he intended, may God have mercy on him,

that he wanted these

issues to be a simple, brief summary in the hands of the seeker of

knowledge, confirming his reduction of the issue. His saying chapters from the

principles of jurisprudence, he intended by it to be partial, may God have mercy on him, and

he intended to reduce if he did not want to include the

issues in this book and did not want

his book to be long, he said they are papers and include chapters

from the principles of jurisprudence, then he began directly, may God have mercy on him, to

know the principles,

and this is a smooth way of gradual progression that will come to you from now,

perhaps until the end of the evening session, and the author, may

God have mercy on him, walks in a smooth, flexible sequence. Whenever he comes to a sentence and wants to move to

another or to a chapter and

move to another, there was a clear,

easy way of moving from one issue to another, from one issue to another, and

from one definition to another. He said, and this is

composed of two parts, that is, his saying the principles of

jurisprudence, and this is an introduction,

and the first thing he begins with is the definition of the principles of jurisprudence. He said, may

God have mercy on him, that is composed of two separate parts, and

that is, your

saying the principles of jurisprudence is composed of two separate parts,

what are they? Principles and jurisprudence He said two

parts, meaning two words, and he said single parts because there are

compound parts. When I say to you in the

conditional style that you strive to succeed, this sentence is composed of two

parts, but they are not single parts. They are two compound parts: the

conditional verb, a tool, and the conditional answer. It may have

related words. So his saying two single parts means not

compound, meaning two words that are only pronounced “Principles” and “Jurisprudence.”

Therefore, if he wanted to know the principles of jurisprudence,

the word “Principles” and the word “Jurisprudence.” This is what he

did, may God have mercy on him. Yes, and it is composed of two single

parts, one of which is “Principles” and the second is “Jurisprudence.” So the

root is what something else is built upon, and the branch is what something else is built upon. He

began with the first word, which is the root.

He said, may God have mercy on him, “So the

root is what something else is built upon, or what

something else is built upon.” This is how he defined it. Perhaps the first to provide such a

definition of the word “root” was Judge Abu al-Husayn al-

Basri, may God have mercy on him, in his book “Al-Mu’tamad.” He

preceded Imam al-Haramayn, or he is his contemporary and

close to him. He died in 463 AH, and Imam al-Haramayn died in

478 AH. He was one of the first to provide this definition. He said, “ What

What

something else is built upon.” The root of the tree is what

its branches are built upon. The root of the building is what

the wall, ceiling, and the rest of the

floors are built upon. The root of the building, the root of the tree, and the root of the

whole issue are about the base upon which everything else is built.

This is the

widespread and prevailing definition, but with Al-Sabk and others like him, they say, “The

definitions? Abu Al-Hussein and Imam Al-Haramayn

say, “What everything else is built upon,” and Al-Subki says, “What

everything else branches off from?” There is a difference, or one came from

here and the other came from

want this superficial verbal differentiation.

Here he said, “What everything is built upon,” and here he said, “What everything

branches off.” We mean, in the end, there is a difference. No, if

there was no difference, they would not have been keen on finding a

different definition except for a

purpose. They say, “Because it is not necessary for

something else to be built upon it,” as evidenced by the fact that the father is the root of the son. Can the

son be built upon him? No, but isn’t it appropriate to say that the son is a branch of the

father. Which is more accurate and safer, to say, “The root is what everything

else is built upon” or “What everything else branches off from it.”

Therefore, they changed it to include something safer. And avoid the

problem, he said, may God have mercy on him, the origin is what branches off from

something else. He said, and it is better because the father is the origin of the son and the

son is not built upon him, so it is not

just a verbal or formal issue. He said, the origin is what something else is built upon. When

the origin is known, the branch is known. Question: We know the origins and

jurisprudence. Where did the word branch come from? I mean, why did it come? The branch is known. We know the origins of jurisprudence. We know the origin. For what reason did it come? The branch is known and from where? No, it is a digression. Do

not try to force the

answer. It is a digression that is not necessary. When they knew the

origin, it digresses into defining the branch and has no relation to

what we are in from the terminology. He said, the branch is what is built

upon or what is built upon something else. Yes, and jurisprudence is

knowledge of the legal rulings, and jurisprudence is knowledge of the legal rulings, the

thing whose path is ijtihad.

This is the

according to the definition of the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, what something else is built upon, and as

knowledge of casting and other things, what something else branches off from it. And

jurisprudence is what it is. He said, knowledge of the

legal rulings whose path is

ijtihad. He summarized a delicious, concise definition that achieves

the purpose. Away from many of the restrictions that

some scholars want to know the

legal rulings, if he had been silent here, would this have been a definition of

jurisprudence? No, because the legal rulings include rulings of

beliefs, which are legal, and rulings of jurisprudence, which are legal rulings, and

rulings of issues that the

accountable person needs in his worship and transactions, whether they

are jurisprudence or other. When he, may God have mercy on him, wanted to be cautious, he

said, “Whose path is ijtihad,” he excluded

two things. The first is the issues of belief, because their

path is not ijtihad, but rather their path is

definitive. The rulings of belief, their

path is certainty and conviction, so they are not ijtihad. He

also excluded the rulings known

known

by necessity, such as the obligation of the five daily prayers, such as the

prohibition of marrying one’s mother. These are known rulings. Is

understanding these issues considered jurisprudence? What a

Muslim knows of his religion by necessity is not called jurisprudence. So he, may

God have mercy on him, corrected and took a precaution by saying, “Whose

path is ijtihad,” so what is known of the religion

by necessity is not what is obtained by ijtihad, so he excluded. And

the rulings of beliefs, their path is certainty and definitive, and

they are not what is obtained by ijtihad, so he excluded. So his saying “whose

path is ijtihad” he wanted to specify with

this definition the issues of jurisprudence and he achieved that may

Allah have mercy on him. The later scholars, when they know jurisprudence in the

definitions that you memorize, what do they say knowledge of

practical legal rulings? Or some of them say acquired,

when they say practical, they want to exclude beliefs, so

he replaced it with saying “whose path is ijtihad” to

exclude beliefs and exclude what is known by necessity

from what is not called its acquisition in jurisprudence, and the matter in this is

easy. Yes, the rulings and their

definitions, and the rulings are seven: obligatory, recommended, permissible, prohibited, disliked,

correct, and

false. Okay, define

jurisprudence, then move to the definition of the rulings. Now, what is the

relevance in the branch there? We said digression here.

ruling? Because it came in jurisprudence? It came in the definition of

jurisprudence. He defined jurisprudence a little while ago. What did he say?

Knowledge of the legal rulings. This requires us to

know what the rulings are. Notice the smooth sequence.

How is the transition? He came to define the rulings, and if he knew the

rulings, he would mention their divisions and the definition of each division and what is

related to it. This is one and the other is that the people of principles

see one of the important entrances for the student of principles before he

dives into the issues of meanings and evidence. To

know the rulings and

consider them an important gateway.

What will you study in the principles of jurisprudence? What will you study? You will

study the legal evidence and methods of deduction or the

meanings of words. All of these are in order for you to say

this is forbidden, this is obligatory, this is recommended, and this is disliked. The scholars of the principles of

jurisprudence want you, before you delve into these details, to have an idea, even a general one, of these terms. What is the meaning of obligatory, what is the meaning of forbidden, and what is the meaning of recommended? All of these will help you to have a sufficient idea that helps you understand these issues. So know these legal rulings to be an important entry point. The

third matter in this is what the

Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, may God have mercy on him, mentioned. He, may God have mercy on him, went beyond,

and in his wonderful concise way, he went beyond

knowing the principles of jurisprudence as a science and with this term as a

title, as is the custom

by saying it is knowledge of the legal evidence in general and the

methods of benefiting from it, and so on. He did not mention this and was satisfied with

this description, and it is very sufficient. Know what

jurisprudence is. It is what you study in purification,

prayer, fasting, Hajj, zakat,

jihad, marriage, and divorce. This is jurisprudence. These are the

issues that are in Jurisprudence, this science is its

foundation. That is enough. If you do not

have its foundation upon which

this jurisprudence is built, then this is more than enough. As for its

issues and what it contains, they will come sequentially in the

chapters of these brief pages. He, may God have mercy on him, said: The rulings are

rulings are

seven. Perhaps this was one of the individual pages and one of the

things that distinguished him from other books of

jurisprudence. Usually, they say the rulings are

five: obligation, recommendation,

permissibility, dislike, and prohibition. But he said seven.

So what did he add to

the five? He, may God have mercy on him, added: the correct and

the false. And here, I mean, a set of matters that

help you understand such an action by Imam al-

Haramayn, may God have mercy on him. Firstly, this action

preceded what was settled upon in the later division

among the scholars of jurisprudence into five divisions. Therefore, you do

not judge the faith of the Two Holy Mosques by a term that was

settled after it. This is one. The second matter is that you must

understand the direction of this seven-fold division that the

father of the Two Holy Mosques came to. Is it more accurate than the

five-fold division of the scholars of jurisprudence after it? The answer is that

if you look at the legal ruling that he wanted

to divide, if it is solved for you The problem is that he wanted to

divide the Shari’a ruling and the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence later

said that the Shari’a ruling is either obligatory or positive. If it is

obligatory, it is five, and if it is positive, it includes the

cause, condition, and the valid,

invalid, or invalid prohibition. Perhaps he also included with it the

concession and the obligation. So it is a different division from the beginning,

different in its aspect and different in its

structure. Imam al-Haramayn, may God have mercy on him, said that the

Shari’a ruling includes the two obligatory

and positive divisions. You will see the explanation of the difference between them

shortly. He said that the rulings are seven, so he took the five

obligatory ones and added to them the valid and invalid ones, which

also helps you understand this interpretation that

Imam al-Haramayn made in the seven-fold division. He looked

at the

Shari’a rulings that relate to

the obligated person and said that they are one of two divisions:

either acts of worship or transactions. The Shari’a rulings are either acts of worship or transactions. The

pillars of Islam: purity, prayer, fasting,

zakat, Hajj,

jihad, and the like. Transactions: marriage, divorce,

sale, its issues, and its branches. And accordingly, the rulings on crimes, the prescribed punishments, retaliation, discretionary punishment, and so on are included in that.

Since jurisprudence is acts of worship and

worship and

transactions, then what… Related to acts of worship are the

five rulings, and related to transactions and

contracts is describing them as valid or invalid. So it is a

collection for you of what is related to the ruling, meaning when the person

responsible comes and says to the jurist and the mufti what is the ruling on

such and such, the questioner either asks about his acts of worship or

asks about a transaction. If he is asked about his acts of worship, the answer

will be one of five correct things. Either you tell

him it is obligatory, recommended, permissible, disliked, or

forbidden. If he asks about a transaction, you will not tell him it is obligatory or

recommended. He asks about a sale or purchase. He asks about a

contract that he is conducting. You will tell him it is valid or invalid. So the

rulings are seven according to the classification of the author, may

God have mercy on him. What will confirm this for you is that he wanted this

view in the classification, that the rulings Rituals and

transactions: Rituals are subject to the five, and

transactions are subject to validity and invalidity.

What helps you understand the Shari’a rulings: if they relate to the actions of the person responsible, then they are the

Shari’a ruling of obligation. The five are obligation, recommended, permissible, disliked, and forbidden. If they are not related to the actions of the person responsible, then they are a Shari’a ruling. An example of this is

that prayer is obligatory. Does this relate to the person responsible?

Is the obligation of prayer related to the person responsible? The

answer is yes. If it is a ruling of

obligation, then prayer is obligatory. For

example, the noon prayer requires the sun to pass from the middle of the sky. The sun’s

passing from the middle of the sky results in the obligation of the

noon prayer. Who decided? Who linked the obligation of

prayer to the passing of the sun? Shari’a is a Shari’a ruling, but

is there an action related to the person responsible? The answer is no. This is a

man-made Shari’a ruling. The reasons, conditions, and impediments are

of this type, as Shari’a has made the passing of a year among the reasons for the obligation of

obligation of

zakat, and among its conditions is owning the nisab. Owning the nisab

and having the money in your possession for a year,

these are Shari’a rulings, but you are not addressed in anything about them.

You are addressed if you own the nisab. And when the year has passed that you are

obligated to pay zakat, the ruling

here is what is paying zakat? You are obligated to do so, but

are you obligated to possess the nisab and collect it? This is

not an obligation. Are you obligated to preserve the

money until a year has passed? You are not obligated to do

this. These are called positive Islamic rulings. They are

Islamic rulings because the Lawgiver is the one who decided them. They are positive because the

Lawgiver set signs for the obligated person to help him with the

obligation. He said to you, when the sun has passed its zenith, the

noon prayer is obligatory. When the red twilight disappears, the night prayer is obligatory. When the white dawn appears on the

horizon, which is the true or second dawn, the

dawn prayer is obligatory. These are the rulings of the Lawgiver. He

set them, so they are called positive rulings. So everything

described in jurisprudence as a cause, condition, or impediment,

these are

Islamic rulings because the Lawgiver is the one who defined them.

Then they are called Islamic rulings and described as positive

so that they are not understood as an obligation, because there is no obligation

in them for the obligated person. He, may God have mercy on him, said, “The rulings are

seven: obligatory, recommended, permissible, prohibited, disliked,

valid, and invalid. We will now know

one by one. Yes, obligatory is what…” He is rewarded for

doing it and punished for leaving it. As for

recommended, we will start with one definition at a time, briefly and without elaboration regarding the definition. He said that what is obligatory is what is rewarded for doing and punished for leaving it. This

definition is memorized by most of the seekers of

knowledge, even the young and beginners among them memorize this definition.

If you ask, what is obligatory? He says, what is rewarded for its

doer and punished for leaving it. Isn’t that so? This

definition of obligatory is very common, and you notice that Imam al-

Haramayn, may God have mercy on him, was one

of the first to provide such a definition for the

legal rulings. You should

extract the rest of the definition for the remaining rulings, so

you will say in recommended, what is what its doer is rewarded.

forbidden, what is

its leaver is rewarded in

disliked, what its leaver is rewarded and its doer is not punished in permissible, what does not result in

reward or punishment for doing or leaving it. All that you mentioned now is not

suitable to be called

a definition because they are rulings. Notice that I am telling you what is

obligatory, and you say what its doer is rewarded. I did not tell you

what its ruling is. The ruling of obligatory is that its doer is rewarded. Correct and

punishable history of these rulings you now gave me

rulings I said to you what is the ruling of the obligatory what is the ruling of the

recommended so if I ask you what is the obligatory what is the recommended

give me a definition of it in itself this is the method that the

class followed that I mentioned through it the

definition of the rest of the rulings is what they call its definition

or definition by the ruling and

they call it in the regions the drawing drawing that you know the thing by its ruling

not by

itself so if you know the thing by itself it is called a limit so your definition of the terms is either a limit

by itself and the drawing is the definition of the thing by its

ruling whichever is stronger in the

definitions the limit and for this reason the regions consider

the definition by the drawing weak because it does not know

the essence but knows its ruling and in any case they are two

ways that you know the thing by itself or by its drawing I mean by

mean by

its ruling he said may God have mercy on him what is rewarded for doing and

punished for leaving it in quick stops here he

said what is rewarded for doing he wanted to exclude what when he said what is rewarded for doing what did he exclude

the forbidden and the disliked and the permissible what remained the recommended and

obligatory remained if he had been silent and said what is

rewarded for doing the recommended would have been included in it so when he

wanted to The delegated is expelled. What did he

do? He added another word. He said, he said, and he is punished for

leaving it to expel the delegated. If you have a definition

of two sentences, my question is, if we limit ourselves to half of the

definition, is it sufficient or not

sufficient? Why are you in a hurry? Look at the definition and think

about it. I did not say the first half. It could be the second half.

Cover the first half and read the

second half. What remains in the second half? What is not punished for leaving it is

sufficient in defining the obligatory by itself.

If I said that the recommended is punished for leaving it, the recommended is punished for leaving it. Not the permissible is punished for leaving it. Not the disliked is punished for leaving it. Not the forbidden is punished for leaving it. Is it

sufficient or not sufficient? If he

said in defining the obligatory by the ruling that the one who leaves it is not punished, is it

sufficient or not

sufficient? There are people who do not understand

yet. Okay, leave now the first part of the definition. What is not

rewarded for doing it and come to what is punished for

leaving it and try to apply the definition to the

remaining rulings. Focus with me. What is recommended? What is recommended? Is one punished for leaving it? I

want everyone to say no. I understand. Is one punished for leaving it? He went out

or not. What is permissible is punished for leaving it.

Okay, is one punished for

leaving it? If something forbidden is not punished, it is not punishable if it is

done. If

something disliked is excluded, it is punishable if it is not done. It is correct for you to say that the phrase “the one who abandons it is not punished”

applies only to the obligatory. Thus,

I dispense with half of the definition. If you are asked to define the

obligatory by the ruling, you will say “the one who abandons it is not punished,” and that is sufficient. And

always, when you come to definitions, if you can

abbreviate the words and dispense with what you do not need in the definition, then that is better. Up to here, a good understanding. The second point in this definition is when you are certain that the punishment will occur, even if you take the first definition, the

one who does it is not rewarded and the one who abandons it is punished. The

fundamentalists have often discussed the issue of certainty that the

punishment will occur because it contradicts the legal principles of the Sunnis. When I say that the one who abandons an obligation is not punished, is it not

among the beliefs of the Sunnis that God Almighty

may pardon and overlook the sinner? Okay, a

person abandoned an obligation, but he was not punished

in the afterlife because God forgave him.

Has the ruling become not obligatory because God did not

punish him? No, so they said no. He was certain in defining the occurrence of

punishment, so some of them changed from your saying what is punished to

their saying what is deserved or what deserves punishment for

leaving it, and some of them even to deserving this, he

said there is no need for you to say deserving punishment, they said the one who leaves it is not blameworthy because blame is obtained whether he receives punishment in

the hereafter or not, he is blameworthy for leaving the duty,

so if some of them said the one who leaves it is not blameworthy, and some of them

said he did not deserve punishment, and some of them said he was not threatened with punishment,

all of that is a deviation from the issue of certainty of the occurrence of

punishment because God may forgive, and He is the most generous of

the generous, and there may be in the work of the one charged with something of

good deeds for which God Almighty forgives him for what he was negligent

in the duties,

finally in his saying what is blameworthy for leaving it or what did not deserve

punishment, as for promising punishment, some of them add a

word legally because you assume that punishment for leaving it

is from a legal perspective, not because other things do not enter into it. In

all of this talk that I said now in

defining the duty, I will not repeat it in the recommended, nor in the

permissible, nor in the disliked because You will find it

in a way and we will pass the author, may God have mercy on him, to save time.

Examples of the obligatory are the obligatory prayers and fasting

Ramadan for those who are able to fast it, being kind to parents, justice

and a mother being a trust, and honesty are among those morals from which no

one is exempted from anyone else. Yes, and what is

recommended. What is recommended is that which one is rewarded for doing and is not punished for leaving it, what one is rewarded for doing and is

not punished for leaving it.

We said a little while ago that these are all definitions of the

ruling. If you want to define the obligatory by definition

itself, you will not say what one is rewarded for or what one is punished for. You will say

what the Shari’ah has demanded with a definitive demand,

because the obligatory is that which the Shari’ah has demanded to be done with definiteness. If it is recommended, the Shari’ah has not demanded it with a non-

definitive demand. And so you will find

the rest of the definitions on it. This definition is that which one is rewarded for

doing and is not punished for leaving it. It is an example of the recommended,

but some of them add the word “absolute” at the end of the definition to

exclude the optional obligation. The

optional obligation is like if one of us expiates his oath and comes to

expiate, then it is feeding ten poor people from

the average of what you feed your families, or clothing them, or freeing a

slave. He has a choice. When he left feeding and came to

clothing, when he left clothing and came to manumission, did he not

leave some of the characteristics in expiation? And expiation is

obligatory, but he was not blamed for leaving it because he moved to an

alternative. So when you say he did not leave it absolutely, meaning he did not

do neither the original nor the alternative, then that is what is true of it that it is

obligatory. So that he goes beyond the definition of recommended, he

says what one is rewarded for doing and is not punished for leaving it

absolutely. From the terms synonymous with the deserving or

recommended according to the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, recommended, recommended, sunnah, and voluntary,

all of them are synonymous according to most scholars of the principles of jurisprudence,

and some of them differentiate with a fine distinction. Yes, and what is permissible and what is permissible

is what one is not rewarded for doing and is not punished

for leaving it, drinking cold water and seeking shade in a leafy

shade, eating good and permissible things, wearing what

God Almighty has permitted. All of that is from examples of permissible

recommended things like the siwak and perfume for Friday

and washing it according to the majority, and examples of that are many. What is permissible is

also called permissible and is called halal, and it is expressed

in the Sharia with some words such as no sin, no

harm, no sin, and no harm. All of that is

Sharia terms that indicate The rule of what is permissible: The basic rule regarding what is permissible is that there is

leaving it, and the jurists do not make an exception from this

rule unless the permissible is a means to something else. It takes the

takes the

ruling of the purpose if the permissible is a means to an

obligation and the fulfillment of the obligation depends on it, then it becomes an obligation. For this reason,

they say what is not complete and you will

see it shortly, God willing, in the words of the

author, may God have mercy on him. Yes, and what is forbidden. What is forbidden is that for which one is rewarded for leaving it and punished for doing it. What one is rewarded for leaving it and punished for doing it.

If you wanted to be

brief, as you did in defining what is obligatory, you would say what its

doer is punished for, because you said there in the obligation what its leaver is punished for, so you

would say here what its doer is punished and that would

also be sufficient. If you wanted to avoid the issue of being

punished and to be definitive, you would say what its doer is blameworthy or its doer

deserves punishment.

Yes, and what is disliked is that for which one is rewarded for leaving it and not

punished for

doing it. Examples of what is disliked are also

numerous, including the

dislike of eating garlic and onions and bringing them to the

mosque because the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, forbade doing

that, and the dislike of raising one’s gaze. To the sky in prayer,

because the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, also forbade that, and how many of the reprehensible

acts of prayer are all an example that fits this topic in defining the

reprehensible, but also pay attention to an

important issue, which is that the term reprehensible in this

sense is also a term that is a recent scientific innovation that was

decided to be defined in this way, and you should not make a mistake by coming

to legal texts that contain the word reprehensible and

interpreting it with this meaning. In Surat Al-Isra,

God mentioned murder, theft, adultery, consuming the wealth of

orphans unjustly, arrogance, and all of those forbidden acts, and He

said at the end of it, “All of that is evil in the sight of

your Lord.” No one interprets reprehensible that all of those major sins are reprehensible in

this sense, that they are below the

degree of what is forbidden. How can it be, when it includes major sins? But reprehensible

there is carried on the meaning that indicates that the

Shari’ah does not accept it and does not approve of it, and repentance is included

in that, and that includes prohibition. But I just wanted to

point out that it is not the correct way to come to

the term that the scholars agreed upon

centuries after the revelation of the Qur’an, and then say that you interpret the

Qur’an with this new, recent term,

even the terms of the early predecessors, Imam Ahmad,

may God have mercy on him. What are the expressions he used to say I hate such and such

and express some of the major and forbidden sins by saying I

hate such and such so you do not understand that Ahmad, may God

have mercy on him, means the disliked by this term? There are terms that were established after previous use, so it is a mistake to withdraw those previous expressions and explain them with modern terms. This was pointed out so that the seeker of knowledge does not fall into anything from that hadith that God hates for you backbiting and asking too many questions and

wasting money. Is it disliked in this sense? No, it

is a legal prohibition and it may reach the point of prohibition if it is

accompanied by evidence. Yes, and the correct thing is what is related to it and

is taken into account. Okay, he moved on, finished from

the five and came to the other two sections. We agreed

that those five include acts of worship. He came here to

talk about transactions, which confirms to you that the Imam of the Two

Holy Mosques, may God have mercy on him, actually meant by the five acts of worship,

and by proof, what did he say about what is

related to it and is taken into account? This definition does not

include acts of worship even though acts of worship are described

as valid or invalid, but it seems that he intended, may God have mercy on him,

that this is specific to him to transactions because transactions

are those in which it is said, it is said about a transaction that is taken into account

or an effective transaction. Or it is not valid.

What is said about an act of worship that is valid? When you want to know the correct act of worship, what do you say? You say it does not

suffice and the judgement is dropped? The prayer is valid. What does it mean? It is valid, that it suffices for the servant and he is not required to make it up?

But you say a valid sale. What does it mean? A sale whose contract is valid and the effect is the transfer of

ownership of the sold item to the buyer and ownership of the price

to the seller. For this reason, he says what is valid.

What is related to validity? It was valid, meaning it took place and its effect was based. A valid marriage. What does it mean? It means that the wife is

entitled to the dowry and the husband is entitled to the benefit of the sexual intercourse. This is what it was valid and its

fruit became dependent on him. This is not said

about acts of worship. If you are asked what is the

meaning of a valid act of worship? A valid fast, a valid prayer,

and the like. A valid circumambulation means what it does not

suffice and the judgement is dropped. Imam Juwayni, may God have mercy on him, when he said in defining the valid, what is related to validity and is valid, he meant contracts and transactions in particular. It is as if he saw that the first five are sufficient in acts of worship, their description, and

the ruling on them. Now he is talking about

transactions. Yes, and invalidity is what is not related to validity and It is

considered the opposite of the definition of the

correct and there are many examples of this. They say a

correct sale if the conditions are met and an invalid sale if

something is missing in it. The majority do not differentiate between the

invalid and the corrupt, and the Hanafis differentiate. Invalid, according to them, or according to the

Hanafis, is what is not permissible in contracts in its origin or description. Corrupt, according to them, is what was permissible in its

origin but not in its description. For example, whoever sold what he does not own, his sale is

sale is

invalid according to the majority of the Hanafis, excuse me, according to the majority of the

Malikis, Shafi’is and Hanbalis. They

say invalid or corrupt sale, according to them, are synonymous with

one meaning. But according to the Hanafis, whoever sold what he does not own has sold an invalid sale.

Whoever sold a dirham for two dirhams, which

is usury, has sold an invalid sale. Why did they

say this is invalid and say this is corrupt? The

difference, according to them, is that contracts in sales, marriage and

others, what can be corrected and rectified is called

invalid, and what cannot be corrected or rectified

is called if there is a stronger in the two sides

and corruption. Invalid is stronger. So when they say an invalid sale,

it means there is no way to correct it. How much did he sell? He does not

have a condition for the validity of the sale. Whoever sells one

dirham for two dirhams, it is usury and a corrupt sale. However, in

order to return the extra dirham and the contract is valid, it can be corrected and is

called a corrupt sale or a corrupt contract in

marriage. Likewise, what cannot be corrected is also

not valid and is called an invalid marriage. What can be corrected, such as a marriage of

shighar, is called an invalid marriage. Thus, the majority do

not differentiate except in two issues:

one in Hajj and the second in marriage. In Hajj, according to the majority,

although the words invalid and corrupt are

synonymous with them, except that the majority

differentiate between an invalid and a corrupt Hajj. Invalid is

what a person apostatizes from Islam in, God forbid, and his

Hajj becomes invalid. However, an invalid Hajj, according to them, is one in which the pilgrim has intercourse with his

wife before the

first release. They do not say an invalid Hajj, they say an invalid Hajj.

What they require in it is the obligation to complete the invalid Hajj and

continue with it. The obligation of Hajj is to make up for the worker who performs it next year, and repentance

and expiation, which is a camel in marriage,

is the second issue. They differentiate between an

invalid and a corrupt marriage. So the marriage that has different validity,

meaning some see it as valid and some do not, is called a

corrupt marriage, and the one that is agreed upon as invalid is called a

void marriage. It is a term that you must understand to know how to deal

with the expressions of the jurists, may God have mercy on them. Yes, jurisprudence, knowledge, and ignorance. Jurisprudence is more

specific than knowledge. Okay,

now Imam Al-Hamd, may God have mercy on him, has finished mentioning the

definitions of the legal rulings. He said, “Jurisprudence is more specific

than knowledge.” He differentiates between the definition of jurisprudence and knowledge. What is the relationship of

relationship of

this to what we are discussing? Where is the first point?

Where did the

principles of jurisprudence begin? Definition of principles. Definition of

jurisprudence. In the definition of jurisprudence, we find the word “rulings.” Definition of rulings.

Why did he come to jurisprudence and knowledge? Now he compares between them

between them

because jurisprudence is knowledge, but he wants to show you that

jurisprudence is one of the types of knowledge. So which of them is more general knowledge?

Is all knowledge

jurisprudence? Is all jurisprudence knowledge? Yes, there is absolute generality and specificity between them. He

said, “Jurisprudence is more specific than knowledge,” because some knowledge is

jurisprudence and some is not jurisprudence. Some of it is grammar, for example, some of it is

accounting, some of it is medicine, and some of it is engineering. All of that is knowledge, but

jurisprudence is one of the types of knowledge. He came to define what he

wanted only, the comparison between jurisprudence and knowledge. He did not

want to enter into the terminology of knowledge. And its divisions

and degrees in obtaining knowledge of the known according to

rational people. Yes, and

jurisprudence and jurisprudence are more specific than knowledge, and knowledge is knowing the known as it is

in reality. Knowledge is knowing the known as it is

in reality.

This is how Imam Al-Haramayn, may God have mercy on him, defined knowledge and

mentioned two things in it: the first is that

knowledge is knowledge and the attainment of perception, and if it is not attained then it is ignorance. The

second thing in defining knowledge is that it should be in

accordance with what it is in reality. The

third thing, and what he mentioned, may God have mercy on him, is that this

perception and knowledge should be by way of certainty. Three

restrictions in defining knowledge according to the people of terminology: that it be

knowledge of the thing, and that this knowledge or

knowledge should be in accordance with reality. The third thing is that it should

be by way of certainty. For this reason, some of them say

knowledge of the known or perception of the thing as it is

in reality, a certain perception. What concerns us

now is Imam Al-Haramay, may God have mercy on him, who defined knowledge in

this way, while he himself in Al-Burhan saw

that knowledge is not

limited. They say sometimes some

expressions, due to their clarity and lack of concealment, do not need a

limit. Ibn Al-Qayyim, may God have mercy on him, for example, did not come to

define love and talk about the love of God and the love of the Prophet, peace be

upon him. Peace and blessings be upon him. He came to define the term

love. He said, may God have mercy on him, that love is something that does not

need a definition because if you defined it, you would increase its ambiguity. What is clear and

known to people, you

know it for whom. What is the purpose of definitions? What is the

purpose is clarification, removing ambiguity, and

bringing the meaning closer to people? If the meaning is

present in the minds of all people, you know why. So,

Imam al-Haramayn went in al-Burhan, and he said, who

expresses his opinion, that knowledge is not limited and should not

be so, but he proceeded in al-Waraqat in this

manner. Ibn al-Hajib, may God have mercy on him, said in

defining knowledge, and perhaps the most correct definition of it is to say,

Ibn al-Hajim says, and perhaps the most correct definition of it is to say, a quality by which distinction is achieved that does not bear the opposite. A quality by which distinction is achieved that does not bear the opposite or does not bear the

opposite. He says, a quality that occurs in a person that enables him to distinguish something to a degree that does not bear the opposite. This is the certainty that I was saying a

little while ago, so there are three restrictions. A final note on the definition of Imam al-

Haramayn. He said, Knowledge

is not the knowledge of the known. Knowledge of the known is the repetition of

the word “knowledge” in the definition, and this, according to al-Manna, is one of the

flaws of the definition, not including in the definition something of the

word of the defined or one of its derivatives. Therefore, he amended The

commentator, Jalal al-Din al-Mahalli,

said: “Knowledge of the known” means realizing what is likely to be known. He

only wanted to bring the matter closer, and the author, may God have mercy on him,

in this summary only wanted to give you the

keys without delving into the details and

controversial issues. Yes, ignorance and ignorance is imagining something as

ignorance? That you are ignorant of something that happened in your house now, and you are

sitting here. You do not know what happened. You do not know what

happened outside in the street now. This is ignorance. What did he say?

Ignorance is knowing something as different from what it is.

Ignorance is of two types: not knowing the thing at all, and

this is called simple ignorance. If I ask you what happened, you

say I do not know. This is ignorance. The other ignorance is more severe and

worse than it, and it is that you say this happened, even though it did not happen, but in your

mind it happened. That you

imagine something as different from what it is in reality. When the author said “imagining something,” he did not say “knowing something.” Why did he say “in

knowledge” “knowing the known?” He said here “imagining something.” Why did he not

say “knowing something as different from what it is?”

Well done, because ignorance is not knowledge and it is not science. So how do you

define ignorance and say “knowledge”? If you defined ignorance as knowledge?

You have thus raised the status of the ignorant. You have

considered something that deserves to be called knowledge, but it is

not so. He said, imagine, because merely perceiving the

issue in an incorrect way is not called

science. Yes, necessary knowledge is that which does not

occur through contemplation and reasoning, like the knowledge that occurs through one of the

five senses, which are hearing, sight, smell,

touch, and taste, or through continuous transmission.

As for acquired knowledge, it is that which occurs through contemplation and

reasoning. Good. He knew

knowledge and contrasted it with ignorance. So he mentioned to them knowledge and

said they are two degrees and knowledge has two

ranks. Knowledge is what occurs with you and with me and with

Zaid and Umar and Bakr and Khalid in any issue in

life, a legal issue, a worldly issue, a

commercial issue. Anything that occurs to you is called knowledge.

If it is with the restrictions in the definition of knowledge, then it is knowledge that it

is a correct perception that matches what is

in reality through the method of certainty. If it is so, then

it is knowledge that you have acquired. You know that your wife gave birth

today. This is knowledge that applies to it. If you do

not know or you have perceived the issue

in a way other than what it is, then it is ignorance. Here he says the

knowledge that any person acquires in any issue has two

acquired knowledge because when you look at any issue you gain knowledge

of it. We will stop, God willing, on the definition of knowledge,

ignorance, doubt and certainty, and this is the last paragraph left for

us in these introductions so that we can resume tomorrow, God

willing, with a new issue. He, may God have mercy on him, said:

Necessary knowledge is that which does not remain without consideration and reasoning.

Theoretical or acquired knowledge is that which is dependent on consideration and

reasoning. The gist of the speech is that your knowledge of any issue in

life, whether legitimate or illegitimate, you gain it in one of two ways. Either you gain knowledge of it in a way that you

ways. Either you gain knowledge of it in a way that you find yourself

find yourself forced to accept and believe in it without choice. Something that you

forced to accept and believe in it without choice. Something that you see with your eyes. Or you gain knowledge of it. You saw the

see with your eyes. Or you gain knowledge of it. You saw the rain falling. Do you need to prove that the rain was falling? You

rain falling. Do you need to prove that the rain was falling? You heard the voice of a person who spoke to you. Do you need to

heard the voice of a person who spoke to you. Do you need to prove that it was really with you? You saw, heard, smelled, tasted, and grasped what you perceived with your senses. You gain

prove that it was really with you? You saw, heard, smelled, tasted, and grasped what you perceived with your senses. You gain

knowledge of it. This knowledge is called necessary knowledge because it does not need proof, evidence, proof, thinking and

not need proof, evidence, proof, thinking and contemplation. It is obtained even in

contemplation. It is obtained even in simple, easy minds like the minds of children. If they

simple, easy minds like the minds of children. If they see something they know. So the knowledge acquired by one of the senses

see something they know. So the knowledge acquired by one of the senses is called necessary knowledge, and knowledge is attached to it. What

is called necessary knowledge, and knowledge is attached to it. What informs you by Tawatur: You have now prayed Maghrib here. You did

informs you by Tawatur: You have now prayed Maghrib here. You did not pray in the

not pray in the Sacred Mosque, but more than one report has been transmitted to you about

Sacred Mosque, but more than one report has been transmitted to you about something that happened in the Haram at one of the doors. Or you can

something that happened in the Haram at one of the doors. Or you can name the imam who led the people in Maghrib

name the imam who led the people in Maghrib today in the Sacred Mosque, even though you did not pray,

today in the Sacred Mosque, even though you did not pray, but you met the first one and he told you, and the second, the third, the

but you met the first one and he told you, and the second, the third, the fifth, and the tenth, and all the people agreed. You will

fifth, and the tenth, and all the people agreed. You will also find yourself compelled to believe, to the point that you can

also find yourself compelled to believe, to the point that you can transmit the report and say that such and such happened, if it reaches

transmit the report and say that such and such happened, if it reaches Tawatur. This is called necessary knowledge because it does not

Tawatur. This is called necessary knowledge because it does not depend

depend on contemplation and reasoning. That is, it does not require you to

on contemplation and reasoning. That is, it does not require you to establish evidence or to look and contemplate the issue.

establish evidence or to look and contemplate the issue. This knowledge is called necessary because the soul finds

This knowledge is called necessary because the soul finds itself compelled to accept it and believe in it. It is contrasted with

itself compelled to accept it and believe in it. It is contrasted with acquired knowledge. Why is it called acquired? Because you strive to

acquired knowledge. Why is it called acquired? Because you strive to acquire it and obtain it by any

acquire it and obtain it by any means, by contemplation and reasoning. So it is called theoretical knowledge.

means, by contemplation and reasoning. So it is called theoretical knowledge. If that is called necessary knowledge, this is called

If that is called necessary knowledge, this is called theoretical knowledge. He said it does not depend on contemplation and

theoretical knowledge. He said it does not depend on contemplation and reasoning. Okay, I will give you a rational example

reasoning. Okay, I will give you a rational example and another

and another legal example. Tell you, one and a half of

legal example. Tell you, one and a half of two. This is necessary, not

two. This is necessary, not theoretical. Why is it necessary? You

theoretical. Why is it necessary? You understand the issues intuitively, without contemplation or thinking. There is

understand the issues intuitively, without contemplation or thinking. There is no evidence if your mind allows you to comprehend such a

no evidence if your mind allows you to comprehend such a mathematical problem to this degree, but if

mathematical problem to this degree, but if we go beyond a problem, and I told you, for example, four is nine of

36. If I told you, two is a sixth of half of how

sixth of half of how much? No, if I told you, half of 12, six is a third of half of

much? No, if I told you, half of 12, six is a third of half of 12. Two is a third of half of 12.

12. Two is a third of half of 12. This requires you to take two steps. The smart,

This requires you to take two steps. The smart, perceptive, and brilliant among us will get it in two seconds and a fraction

perceptive, and brilliant among us will get it in two seconds and a fraction of a second, and the one whose mind is as good as my story will

of a second, and the one whose mind is as good as my story will take an additional five seconds to comprehend it in

take an additional five seconds to comprehend it in the end. Does it happen to you intuitively without contemplation?

the end. Does it happen to you intuitively without contemplation? No, this is in the rational examples. Even the religious matters,

No, this is in the rational examples. Even the religious matters, among the religious matters, are issues that are taken for granted. We gave

among the religious matters, are issues that are taken for granted. We gave them examples based on what is known from the religion by necessity. If I told you

them examples based on what is known from the religion by necessity. If I told you that Islam forbade marrying one’s mother, or that the

that Islam forbade marrying one’s mother, or that the five daily prayers are obligatory in Islam, this does not require you to

five daily prayers are obligatory in Islam, this does not require you to look for evidence or establish evidence for it.

look for evidence or establish evidence for it. But there are issues that are a matter of dispute. Does eating

But there are issues that are a matter of dispute. Does eating camel meat invalidate ablution or not? The

camel meat invalidate ablution or not? The issue is disputed, and even if you say yes or no, it is likely You have something

issue is disputed, and even if you say yes or no, it is likely You have something you are looking at Evidence and opposing evidence, and

you are looking at Evidence and opposing evidence, and one of the two matters is more likely for you. So if you call

one of the two matters is more likely for you. So if you call it knowledge, it is called theoretical knowledge. Okay, the issues of

it knowledge, it is called theoretical knowledge. Okay, the issues of jurisprudence, are most of them necessary or theoretical? I mean, most of the

jurisprudence, are most of them necessary or theoretical? I mean, most of the issues of jurisprudence are subject to ijtihad, or are

issues of jurisprudence are subject to ijtihad, or are most of them definitive? Most of them are subject to ijtihad. This is from the

most of them definitive? Most of them are subject to ijtihad. This is from the mercy of the Shari’a towards the Muslim, that the issues are not

mercy of the Shari’a towards the Muslim, that the issues are not subject to certainty and conviction that people are obligated to. Yes,

subject to certainty and conviction that people are obligated to. Yes, and consideration,

and consideration, and consideration is thinking in the case of being considered, and inference is

and consideration is thinking in the case of being considered, and inference is seeking evidence. What is appropriate? He wanted to

seeking evidence. What is appropriate? He wanted to define consideration and

define consideration and inference because it came in the definition of

inference because it came in the definition of necessary and theoretical knowledge, that which does not depend on

necessary and theoretical knowledge, that which does not depend on consideration and inference, that which depends on consideration and inference. What is consideration? He

consideration and inference, that which depends on consideration and inference. What is consideration? He said consideration is thinking in the case of being considered, and

said consideration is thinking in the case of being considered, and inference is seeking evidence. Yes, and evidence,

inference is seeking evidence. Yes, and evidence, and evidence is the guide to the desired, the guide to the

and evidence is the guide to the desired, the guide to the desired. If the evidence is a text in

desired. If the evidence is a text in legal matters, then it is evidence. If the evidence is proof

legal matters, then it is evidence. If the evidence is proof in rational issues, meaning when I told you,

in rational issues, meaning when I told you, two is a third of half of twelve, I need

two is a third of half of twelve, I need inference, so someone take a piece of paper and a pen for you and explain to you

inference, so someone take a piece of paper and a pen for you and explain to you one by one, how much is 12, half of it? You say six. Okay, how

one by one, how much is 12, half of it? You say six. Okay, how much is six, a third of it? You say two. He said to you, if it is

much is six, a third of it? You say two. He said to you, if it is a third of half of twelve, he will give you A paper that writes

a third of half of twelve, he will give you A paper that writes the numbers for you and explains its steps to you. This is evidence. If

the numbers for you and explains its steps to you. This is evidence. If evidence is the guide to what is required, yes. And conjecture is the permissibility of two

evidence is the guide to what is required, yes. And conjecture is the permissibility of two things, one of which is more apparent than the other. On what

things, one of which is more apparent than the other. On what occasion did he begin to know conjecture and doubt? Now that he has known

occasion did he begin to know conjecture and doubt? Now that he has known knowledge, in matters of Islamic law, you must have two

knowledge, in matters of Islamic law, you must have two levels: knowledge and

levels: knowledge and conjecture. Knowledge of the Islamic ruling and his conjecture is his conjecture. That means that you do

conjecture. Knowledge of the Islamic ruling and his conjecture is his conjecture. That means that you do not assert the Islamic ruling. I told you about

not assert the Islamic ruling. I told you about matters of ijtihad, even if you have a stronger

matters of ijtihad, even if you have a stronger opinion about them. Do you have a stronger opinion that eating camel meat invalidates

opinion about them. Do you have a stronger opinion that eating camel meat invalidates ablution? You say yes. When you say yes, if you reach a

ablution? You say yes. When you say yes, if you reach a level that you consider the other opinion

level that you consider the other opinion invalid and void, with no consideration or consideration for it, and your concern and your

invalid and void, with no consideration or consideration for it, and your concern and your exclusion of it completely from the Islamic account, the answer is no. It still has a

exclusion of it completely from the Islamic account, the answer is no. It still has a possibility of being correct, even if it is a

possibility of being correct, even if it is a small percentage. If it is a matter of ijtihad,

small percentage. If it is a matter of ijtihad, you have obtained knowledge through it theoretically. If this is knowledge that is met by conjecture, if it is most likely in your

you have obtained knowledge through it theoretically. If this is knowledge that is met by conjecture, if it is most likely in your opinion that eating camel meat invalidates

opinion that eating camel meat invalidates ablution, why would it be strange to your opinion? Because your ijtihad may differ

ablution, why would it be strange to your opinion? Because your ijtihad may differ one day and you may lean towards the other opinion.

one day and you may lean towards the other opinion. If it is a strong conjecture, here it is appropriate to know conjecture. He

If it is a strong conjecture, here it is appropriate to know conjecture. He said: Suspicion is the permissibility of two matters, one of which is more apparent than the

said: Suspicion is the permissibility of two matters, one of which is more apparent than the other. That is, two matters are permissible. What is the meaning of two permissible? It means equal

other. That is, two matters are permissible. What is the meaning of two permissible? It means equal in probability. This is permissible to occur and

in probability. This is permissible to occur and this is permissible to occur if the two sides of the issue are

this is permissible to occur if the two sides of the issue are equal. If they are equal without one being preferred over the other, then

equal. If they are equal without one being preferred over the other, then this is called

this is called doubt. As he said, the permissibility of two matters, neither of them being

doubt. As he said, the permissibility of two matters, neither of them being superior, my brother. Any matter that is wavering between two sides has

superior, my brother. Any matter that is wavering between two sides has three possibilities: the two sides are equal in

three possibilities: the two sides are equal in probability, 50% 50%. This is called doubt. If

probability, 50% 50%. This is called doubt. If one side is more likely than the other, even by half, then the one is more likely and the other is less likely. Your

one side is more likely than the other, even by half, then the one is more likely and the other is less likely. Your perception of the more likely is soft.

perception of the more likely is soft. Your acquisition of knowledge of it is called conjecture. The

Your acquisition of knowledge of it is called conjecture. The other is called conjecture. The two are the more likely, suspicion, and the less likely is illusion.

other is called conjecture. The two are the more likely, suspicion, and the less likely is illusion. And if the two sides are equal, it is called an

And if the two sides are equal, it is called an example. You are circumambulating the Kaaba and you have doubts about the number of

example. You are circumambulating the Kaaba and you have doubts about the number of

rounds. You pray Dhuhr, Asr, and Isha. You have doubts about the number of rak’ahs. What does it mean to say I have

doubts. They are equal in probability? I don’t know. Okay, I sat contemplating or trying to remember. I did not reach a certainty, but

or trying to remember. I did not reach a certainty, but my assumption was that it was five. Circuits and not six It

my assumption was that it was five. Circuits and not six It is the third rak’ah and not the second

is the third rak’ah and not the second What is this called? This is conjecture. If you are most likely to think something, it is

What is this called? This is conjecture. If you are most likely to think something, it is called conjecture. The other possibility is called if you are in

called conjecture. The other possibility is called if you are in doubt, it is five circuits or six, you are most likely to think that it is

doubt, it is five circuits or six, you are most likely to think that it is five, so the five is conjecture and the six are an illusion. What is required by Islamic law?

five, so the five is conjecture and the six are an illusion. What is required by Islamic law? Acting upon what is most likely to be thought of, and illusion is of no

Acting upon what is most likely to be thought of, and illusion is of no consequence. And whoever leans toward the weaker opinion while he

consequence. And whoever leans toward the weaker opinion while he has evidence has acted upon what is not permissible by Islamic law because he has

has evidence has acted upon what is not permissible by Islamic law because he has acted or followed a mistake and illusion, and he is not permitted to

acted or followed a mistake and illusion, and he is not permitted to consider it. Yes, doubt and doubt is the permissibility of two things, neither of which has any

consider it. Yes, doubt and doubt is the permissibility of two things, neither of which has any advantage over the other. Okay, we will stop

advantage over the other. Okay, we will stop here because the author, may Allah have mercy on him, based on the

here because the author, may Allah have mercy on him, based on the following sentence will explain the definition of the science of the principles of

following sentence will explain the definition of the science of the principles of jurisprudence and mention its chapters and proceed directly to mention the

jurisprudence and mention its chapters and proceed directly to mention the issues related to it. I ask Allah for me and you

issues related to it. I ask Allah for me and you beneficial knowledge and righteous deeds that bring us closer to Him. Allah knows best.

beneficial knowledge and righteous deeds that bring us closer to Him. Allah knows best. And may Allah grant peace and blessings upon our Prophet

And may Allah grant peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and companions

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:شرح متن الورقات للشيخ حسن بخاري1

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
شرح متن الورقات للشيخ حسن بخاري1