Sheikh Shawki Khudair

Who was assassinated at the sinful and treacherous hands on this day, the seventh of Dhul Qi'ddah year 1434 AH, corresponding to the twelfth of September 2013 CE, in the city of Baquba, as he left one of Allah's (swt) houses after he prayed Maghrib, after which he was transferred to the hospital where his pure soul left to its Maker, complaining of the cruelty of a lost individual who made a pact with the Shaytan and his supporters to offset every call to Almighty Allah that has good for this Ummah in this world and the Hereafter.

May Allah (swt) bless you Abu Ahmad and shower you with His Mercy. And write for you martyrdom on His path. You carried the responsibility of the Muslims, calling for the rule by Allah Almighty's Shar', and the realization of the Messenger's (saw) promise with the establishment of the second Righteous Khilafah "Caliphate" on the way of the Prophethood. We are sad to part with you, for Allah is what He took and His is what he gave, and we do not say except what pleases our Lord...

(إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ)

"Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return."

Headlines:

• US Welcomes 'Significant' Russian Proposal on Syrian Weapons Handover
• Russia's Vladimir Putin Orders Missile Defence Shipment to Iran
• Pentagon Opposes Full US Withdrawal from Afghanistan
• Indian Troops Deployed to Quell Hindu-Muslim Riots in Uttar Pradesh

Details:

US Welcomes 'Significant' Russian Proposal on Syrian Weapons Handover

The US has welcomed what it called "very specific" Russian proposals to secure the handover of Syria's chemical weapons before key talks in Geneva on Thursday. Placing its faith in Moscow's leverage over its Syrian ally, the White House urged patience and said it was increasingly confident that its Kremlin partners were acting in good faith by "putting their prestige on the line". "We have seen more co-operation from Russia in the last two days than we have heard in the last two years," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "The proposal they have put forward is very specific and the Syrian reaction is a total about-face. This is significant." The sudden thaw in White House attitudes toward Russia has met with scepticism in Washington, where many see it as an excuse for Barack Obama to avoid defeat in Congress over military action against Syria. A speech by Obama to the American people on Wednesday night was criticised by hawkish Republicans after it called for a suspension of Senate attempts to pass a resolution authorising US strikes. The White House insisted the Russian offer was genuine and a direct result of the pressure it had put on Syria. "There is no question that the credible threat of US force helped bring us to this point," Carney said. "By making this proposal Russia has, to its credit, put its prestige on the line when it comes to a close ally." But writing on Wednesday night in the New York Times, Vladimir Putin drew contrast between Russia's approach and the Obama administration's talk of military intervention - something the Russian president warned could "increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism."  Syria was not witnessing a battle for democracy but "an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multi-religious country", Putin said, in an editorial repeating assertions that rebels rather than the government might have used chemical weapons, "to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons", and may be planning further attacks, even against Israel." [An American attack] could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilise the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance." [Source: The Guardian]

Russia's Vladimir Putin Orders Missile Defence Shipment to Iran

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his government on Wednesday to send five high-tech surface-to-air missile defence systems to Iran, a move intended in part to put a stop to Tehran's $4 billion lawsuit over a contract dispute. The shipment includes five S300VM Antey-2500 missile systems, United Press International reported. Iran's ambassador to Russia, Seyed Mahmoud Reza Sajadi, welcomed the announcement and said his country now will drop its lawsuit, which stems from a 2007 agreement. Then, Russia promised to give the country five missile defence systems that were modified versions of the S300 types. After Russia reneged, Iran sued. On Wednesday, Mr. Putin also said Russia will honour its previously forged deal to help construct a second nuclear power facility in Bushehr, UPI reported. The announcement comes on the heels of Russia's recent transfer of several S-300 missile defence systems to Syria. [Source: Washington Times]

Pentagon Opposes Full US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Despite recent reports that the White House is considering a total troop withdrawal from Afghanistan after 2014, the Pentagon said Tuesday that "substantial" long-term U.S. military support -- including troops on the ground in training and support roles -- will be needed to prop up Afghan security forces after next year's deadline for ending the combat mission. In its biannual report to Congress on progress in the war, the Pentagon argued that Afghanistan's military is growing stronger but will require a lot more training, advising and foreign financial aid after the U.S. and NATO combat mission ends. Meanwhile, the White House has not ruled out leaving no troops behind after 2014, although officials have told the AP that the most likely option is a residual training force of roughly 9,000. Taliban attacks have been on the uptick in recent months, and the United Nations reported Wednesday that civilian casualties -- more than half of them caused by insurgent bomb attacks -- increased by 23% in the first half of 2013. The Pentagon's report implicitly rejected the "zero option," in which the U.S. would leave no troops in the country after the NATO withdrawal. While that option is considered unlikely, President Obama has grown frustrated in his dealings with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in recent months, and the White House has publicly floated the idea of total withdrawal. Peter Lavoy, the Pentagon's top Afghan policy official, spoke about the report at a news conference Tuesday, saying that a number of post-2014 options have been developed. Those options will take into account the Afghans' need for additional training and advising, as well as what the Pentagon views as a longer-term requirement for U.S. counterterrorism forces in Afghanistan, he said. "In none of these cases have we developed an option that is zero," Lavoy said.  It remains possible that the administration will be left with no option other than zero if it cannot successfully negotiate a security deal with Kabul that gives the U.S. a legal basis for having forces in Afghanistan after 2014. Talks on a security deal began last year but have made little recent headway as Karzai pushed back against Washington's efforts to broker a political agreement with the Taliban, whose insurgency remains far from defeated despite almost 12 years of U.S. military involvement. Karzai suspended talks on a security deal earlier this month in protest at the opening of a Taliban political office in Qatar, intended to facilitate peace talks. Karzai was outraged by the Taliban facility adopting the trappings of an embassy. [Source: Al Jazeera]

Indian Troops Deployed to Quell Hindu-Muslim Riots in Uttar Pradesh

Hundreds of troops have been deployed to quell deadly riots and clashes between Hindus and Muslims sparked by the killing of three villagers who had objected when a young woman was being harassed in northern India. Police said 19 people were killed, including an Indian journalist, a police photographer and several people who yesterday succumbed to injuries received a day earlier when the two groups fought with guns and knives in Kawal village, in Uttar Pradesh. The violence quickly spread to neighbouring villages in Muzaffarnagar district on Saturday night. "A curfew has been imposed in three riot-hit areas of Muzaffarnagar," said the head of the state's Home Ministry, R.M. Srivastava. "The situation is still very tense, but under control." Soldiers were going door-to-door to search for weapons. A high alert was declared for the entire state of Uttar Pradesh, which has a population of 200 million people. The clashes broke out on Saturday after thousands of Hindu farmers held a meeting in Kawal to demand justice in the August 27 killing of three men who had spoken out when a woman was being verbally harassed. The state's minority welfare minister, Mohammad Azam Khan, said some at the meeting gave provocative speeches calling for Muslims to be killed. The farmers were attacked as they were returning home after the meeting, senior police official Arun Kumar said. "The attack seemed well planned," Kumar said. "Some were armed with rifles and sharp-edged weapons." Gunfire was reported from several areas of the village. Within hours clashes broke out in neighbouring villages, Kumar said. A leader from the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party said tensions had been simmering since the three men were killed in a tea shop. "Had the killers been arrested, the situation might not have gone out of hand," Vijay Bahadur Pathak said. Uttar Pradesh was at the heart of some of India's worst communal clashes in December 1992 after a Hindu mob razed a 16th century mosque in Ayodhya. The government has warned that India is seeing a rise in communal violence, with 451 incidents reported this year, compared with 410 for all of 2012. Tensions were expected to escalate in the run-up to next year's national elections, Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde said in New Delhi. He said all 28 of India's states should stay alert and improve their ability to gather intelligence. [Source: South China Morning Post]

Question:

These are issues that deal with the woman that I would like you to clarify, and may Allah (swt) reward you:

1- What is the evidence for the prohibition of the woman to travel for Hajj except for with a Mahram (unmarriageable kin)?

The answer:

The evidence is:

A. Related by al-Bukhari in his Sahih on the authority of Ibn Abbas (ra) who said: The Prophet (saw) said

«لاَ تُسَافِرِ المَرْأَةُ إِلَّا مَعَ ذِي مَحْرَمٍ، وَلاَ يَدْخُلُ عَلَيْهَا رَجُلٌ إِلَّا وَمَعَهَا مَحْرَمٌ»

"A woman should not travel except with a Dhu-Mahram (unmarriageable kin), and no man may visit her except in the presence of a Dhu-Mahram."

So a man stood up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I intend to go to such and such and arm (for Jihad) and my wife wants to perform Hajj." The Prophet (saw) said (to him):

«اخْرُجْ مَعَهَا»

"Go along with her (to Hajj)"

B. And Ibn Hajar said in the explanation of the hadith in the book Fath al-Bari: (and Darqatni related it and Abu Awana Hadith al-Bab corrected it through Ibn Hajar through Amru bin Dinar with the phrase:

«لَا تَحُجَّنَّ امْرَأَةٌ إِلَّا وَمَعَهَا ذُو مَحْرَمٍ»

"A woman does not go to Hajj except with Dhu-Mahram"

This is the most correct that I have, and there are other details... And Allah is the Guide to the way of righteousness.

2. Is it permissible for the woman to be an ambassador, and if the answer is no then why? With the knowledge that being an ambassador is not a position of ruling?

Answer:

All of the acts that require private situations, meaning a kind of being in seclusion (khulwa) even if it was only sometimes, then the woman is prohibited from practicing it... and the work of an ambassador requires that, because there are matters that the ambassador is responsible for conveying without anyone viewing... and this is enough of a reason without needing to research other issues of why a woman is prohibited from being an ambassador.

Question:

It is mentioned in the book: "The Islamic Personality vol. 3, the accredited edition" on page 46 on lines 6 and 7 (in the Arabic edition) what reads: "And what the Shar' is silent about is what it does not prohibit, which is what it permits, and the Wajib [obligatory] and Mandub [recommended] and Mubah [permissible] and Makruh [reprehensible] fall under that."

And I have the following questions:

1.    It is stated in the hadith: "سكت عن.." "Was silent on..", so if we assume that it is comprehensive of Wajib and Mandub and Makruh then that would be the lack of clarification from the Legislator about that which must be clarified...

2.    He said: "عن أشياء" "About things", and did not say about actions, and what is conceivable about things is permissibility and prohibition, and not its being Wajib or Mandub or Makruh, particularly since the hadith came in the question of the judgment on: (ghee, and cheese, and fur), which are things and not actions...

3.    It is stated in the hadith: "رخصة" "Rukhsa [permit]", so how can it be a rukhsa with the interpretation of silence with the possibility of being Wajib?!

4.    It is stated in the hadith: "عفو" "'Afu [pardon]", so how can it be a pardon with the interpretation of silence with the possibility of being Wajib?!

5.    It is stated in the hadith: "فلا تبحثوا عنها" "Then do not inquire into these", so it prohibits inquiring in this issue, so if it is possibly Wajib or Mandub or Makruh, then he would not have prohibited it?

Please clarify this, and may Allah reward you.

Answer:

1. The relevant hadiths are:

A. What al-Tirmidhi narrated from Salman al-Farisi who said: The Prophet (saw) was asked about ghee, cheese and fur. He replied:

«الْحَلاَلُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ، وَالْحَرَامُ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ، وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ مِمَّا عَفَا عَنْهُ»

"The lawful things are the ones mentioned in Allah's (Swt) book as lawful and the unlawful things are the ones which are mentioned in Allah's (swt) book as unlawful, and whatever He (swt) was silent about, then it is a pardon."

And in the narration of Abu Dawud through Ibn Abbas:

فَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى نَبِيَّهُ، صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَنْزَلَ كِتَابَهُ، وَأَحَلَّ حَلَالَهُ، وَحَرَّمَ حَرَامَهُ، فَمَا أَحَلَّ فَهُوَ حَلَالٌ، وَمَا حَرَّمَ فَهُوَ حَرَامٌ، وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ عَفْوٌ

"Then Allah sent His Prophet (saw) and sent down His Book, so he made the lawful lawful, and the prohibited prohibited; so what He made lawful is lawful, and what he made unlawful is unlawful, and what he was silent about is a pardon."

B. And in al-Bayhaqi's Al-Sunan al-Kubra through Tha'alaba (ra):

إِنَّ اللهَ فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ، فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا، وَحَّدَ حُدُودًا، فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا، وَنَهَى عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ، فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا، وَسَكَتَ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ رُخْصَةً لَكُمْ، لَيْسَ بِنِسْيَانٍ، فَلَا تَبْحَثُوا عَنْهَا

"Verily Allah the Almighty has prescribed the obligatory deeds, so do not neglect them; He has set certain limits, so do not go beyond them; He has forbidden certain things, so do not indulge in them; and He has said nothing about certain things, as a permit for you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not go enquiring into these."

C. Tirmidhi and Daraqutni's hadith on the authority of Ali (ra): When this Ayah was revealed:

((وَلِلَّهِ عَلَى النَّاسِ حِجُّ الْبَيْتِ مَنِ اسْتَطاعَ إِلَيْهِ سَبِيلًا))

"And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way."

They said: "Every year, Oh Messenger of Allah (swt)?" He (saw) was silent, so they said: "Every year?" He said:

«لَا وَلَوْ قُلْتُ نَعَمْ لَوَجَبَتْ»

"No, and if I said yes then it would become obligatory"

And Allah (swt) revealed:

((يا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لا تَسْئَلُوا عَنْ أَشْياءَ إِنْ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُمْ))

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you."

To the end of the verse.

And in another narration by Daraqutni on the authority of Abu Hurayra, he said that Allah's Messenger (saw) said:

«يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْحَجُّ»

"O people, Allah has made the hajj obligatory for you."

A man got up and said, ‘Every year, Messenger of Allah?' He turned away from him, then the man repeated and said "Every year Oh Messenger of Allah (swt)?" So he said:

«وَمَنِ الْقَائِلُ»

"Who is that who asks?"

So they said: "This person," and he said:

«وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَوْ قُلْتُ نَعَمْ لَوَجَبَتْ وَلَوْ وَجَبَتْ مَا أَطَقْتُمُوهَا وَلَوْ لَمْ تُطِيقُوهَا لَكَفَرْتُمْ»

"By He who my soul is in his hand, if I had said yes then it would be obligatory and if it was obligatory then you would not handle it and if you were not able to handle it then you would disbelieve."

So Allah (swt) revealed the Ayah,

((يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لا تَسْئَلُوا عَنْ أَشْياءَ إِنْ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُم ))

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you."

2. Before delving into their meanings it would be good to refer to some necessary points:

A. The differentiation between "thing and action" is a question of Usul ul-fiqh [the foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence] and not a linguistic question. Otherwise, saying a thing would include the action, and as such classify the Hukm Shari' as fard [obligatory], and wajib [obligatory], mandub [recommended], mubah [permissible], makruh [reprehensible], haram [prohibited], manthoor, and rukhsa [permit], ‘azeema, shart [condition], sabab [cause], mani', sahih, fasid, batil... these are terms of Usul ul-fiqh, so if you opened a linguistic dictionary for their meanings you would not find the meaning according to the Usul ul-fiqh.

And these terms of the foundations of Islamic jurisprudence originated after the time of the Messenger (saw) and the Righteous Khalifas, like the grammatical terminology (subject and object)... so if we look in a linguistic dictionary we would find its meaning different from the conventional grammatical meaning.

B. Therefore, if you read a hadith of the Messenger (saw) or his companions (ra) and find the word "thing" or the word "subject", that does not mean the same in conventional terminology, so one must study it to see its correct significance where it falls: Is it a linguistic reality, or a special custom "convention", or a Shar'i reality.

C. If the question is about particular phrases, and the answer was general independent of the question, then the generality is in the topic of the question that the answer addresses, and not specific to the phrases that are found in the question, for example the Sahih hadith that Tirmidhi related through Abu Sayeed al-Khudri, he said: It was said: Oh the Messenger of Allah (saw), Can we perform ablution out of the well of Buda'ah...? So the Messenger (saw) said:

«إِنَّ المَاءَ طَهُورٌ لَا يُنَجِّسُهُ شَيْءٌ»

"Water is pure and is not defiled by anything."

So here the Messenger (saw) was asked about the well of Buda'ah, but the answer was independent of the well of Buda'ah, and the well of Buda'ah was not mentioned in it, only

«إِنَّ المَاءَ طَهُورٌ لَا يُنَجِّسُهُ شَيْءٌ»

"Water is pure and is not defiled by anything."

So the generality is applied to the purification with water whether it is from the well of Buda'ah or from any well, and it cannot be said that the topic of generalization is the well of Buda'ah, instead it can be said that the answer is general and about its topic that is taken from the answer and not from the question, in other words it is taken from

«إِنَّ المَاءَ طَهُورٌ لَا يُنَجِّسُهُ شَيْءٌ»

"Water is pure and is not defiled by anything."

and not from "the well of Buda'ah", or the topic is purification with water, and the topic is not the well of Buda'ah...

3. And now we will answer your questions:

A. Tirmidhi's hadith: The Messenger (saw) was asked about ghee, cheese, and fur, so he said:

«الْحَلاَلُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ، وَالْحَرَامُ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ، وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ مِمَّا عَفَا عَنْهُ»

"The lawful things are the ones mentioned in Allah's (Swt) book as lawful and the unlawful things are the ones which are mentioned in Allah's (swt) book as unlawful, and whatever He (swt) was silent about, then it is a pardon."

And in the narration of Abu Dawud:

«...وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ عَفْوٌ»

"And what he was silent about is a pardon."

So what is followed "وما سكت عنه..." "whatever He (swt) was silent about" returns to the last part that is followed which is "والحرام ما حرم الله في كتابه" "and the unlawful things are the ones which are mentioned in Allah's (swt) book as unlawful", or that what he was silent about is a pardon from the haram, and is halal.

The generalization here is in its topic, but because the answer is more general than the question and independent of it then the topic is taken from the answer and not from the question, and therefore it includes everything that is halal or haram whether it is in regards to ghee and cheese and fur or a matter that falls under halal or under haram. This applies to everything that falls under "thing or action" according to the conventional meaning, because if it applies to a thing, then halal here means "permissible", and if it is applies to an action, then halal here is what is not haram, in other words what is "fard, mandub, mubah, makruh."

B. Al-Bayhaqi's hadith through Abu Tha'alaba (ra):

«... وَنَهَى عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ، فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا، وَسَكَتَ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ رُخْصَةً لَكُمْ، لَيْسَ بِنِسْيَانٍ، فَلَا تَبْحَثُوا عَنْهَا»

"...He has forbidden certain things, so do not indulge in them; and He has said nothing about certain things, as a permit for you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not go enquiring into these"

In this hadith are three matters:

The first:

"سكت عن أشياء"

"He has said nothing about certain things."

And "things" here is not according to the conventional meaning, as in something other than an action, instead it includes actions, for example in the blessed Ayah:

((يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَسْأَلُوا عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ إِنْ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُمْ وَإِنْ تَسْأَلُوا عَنْهَا حِينَ يُنَزَّلُ الْقُرْآنُ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ عَفَا اللَّهُ عَنْهَا وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ))

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing."

And what was asked about was "the action of Hajj". It is mentioned in the Tafsir of Qurtubi (330/6):

(Tirmidhi and al-Darqatni's hadith on the authority of Ali (ra) who said: When this Ayah:

(وَلِلَّهِ عَلَى النَّاسِ حِجُّ الْبَيْتِ مَنِ اسْتَطاعَ إِلَيْهِ سَبِيلًا﴾))

"And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way."

Was revealed they said: Oh Messenger of Allah, every year? So he was silent, so they said: Every year? He said:

«لَا وَلَوْ قُلْتُ نَعَمْ لَوَجَبَتْ»

"No, and if I said yes then it would become obligatory."

So Allah (swt) revealed the Ayah:

((يا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لا تَسْئَلُوا عَنْ أَشْياءَ إِنْ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُم ))

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you."

To the end of the verse.

And in another narration by Daraqutni on the authority of Abu Hurayra, he said that Allah's Messenger (saw) said:

«يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْحَجُّ»

"O people, Allah has made the hajj obligatory for you."

A man stood up and said, ‘Every year, Messenger of Allah?' He turned away from him, then the man repeated and said, "Every year Oh Messenger of Allah (swt)?" So he said:

«وَمَنِ الْقَائِلُ»

"Who is that who asks"

So they said: This person, he said:

«وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَوْ قُلْتُ نَعَمْ لَوَجَبَتْ وَلَوْ وَجَبَتْ مَا أَطَقْتُمُوهَا وَلَوْ لَمْ تُطِيقُوهَا لَكَفَرْتُمْ»

"By He who my soul is in his hand, if I had said yes then it would be obligatory and if it was obligatory then you would not handle it and if you were not able to handle it then you would disbelieve"

So Allah revealed the Ayah:

((يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لا تَسْئَلُوا عَنْ أَشْياءَ إِنْ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُم))

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you."

End.

And it is clear that what was asked about was Hajj, and it is an "action", and the Aya about "things" was applied to it.

And the second:

"وسكت عن أشياء رخصة لكم"

"He has said nothing about certain things, as a permit for you"

And this followed

"وسكت..."

"He has said nothing..."

Is returned to the nearest, followed on

"وَنَهَى عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ، فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا"

"He has forbidden certain things, so do not indulge in them"

In other words the permit is from the definitive forbidding "haram" rather than "indulge in them", or what he was silent about was a permit for what is haram, so it is halal. If what was asked about it was a thing by conventional meaning, then it applies and then halal here is permissibility, and if what was asked about was an action by conventional meaning, then this applies and the halal here would be what is not haram, or what is "fard, mandub,mubah, and makruh.."

Third:

"فلا تبحثوا عنها"

"So do not go enquiring into these"

It is connected to the followed

"وسكت عن أشياء"

"He has said nothing about certain things"

On the followed by

"وَنَهَى عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ، فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا"

"He has forbidden certain things, so do not indulge in them"

Meaning it is halal, so do not look for its prohibition, and it does not mean to not look for its judgment in terms of fard or mandub... because the meaning of the hadith is that what was silent about is halal, so do not look for its prohibition out of fear that it will be made haram because of your asking about it, as was mentioned in Bukhari's hadith: On the authority of Sa'ad bin Abu Waqqas, that the Messenger (saw) said:

«إِنَّ أَعْظَمَ المُسْلِمِينَ جُرْمًا، مَنْ سَأَلَ عَنْ شَيْءٍ لَمْ يُحَرَّمْ، فَحُرِّمَ مِنْ أَجْلِ مَسْأَلَتِهِ»

"The most sinful person among the Muslims is the one who asked about something which had not been prohibited, but was prohibited because of his asking."

4- And based on that, then what you mentioned in your question is as follows:

• Your saying "so if we assume that it is comprehensive for Wajib and Mandub and Makruh then that would be the lack of clarification from the Lawmaker (Allah)...":

The issue stated in the hadith is between halal and haram, and it has been shown that what is silent about is halal, so the topic of the hadith has been completely clarified. The inquiry into what kind of halal "wajib, mandub, mubah, makruh" in the case of what is being asked about is an action in Usul ul-fiqh meaning, then it is sought from other hadiths, because all the rulings are not taken from one hadith, and this is known by the people of Ijtihad and Usul ul-fiqh.

• Your saying"أشياء" "things": We have clarified that this includes actions, and it does not matter that what was asked about was "ghee and cheese and fur", because the answer is more general than the question. It can be that what was asked about was a "thing" in conventional terms, as is in the hadith "cheese...", and it can be that what was asked about is an "action" as in the hadith "Hajj..." The blessed Ayah called what was asked about (the action of Hajj) a "أشياء" "thing", and the Almighty (swt) said:

(( يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَسْأَلُوا عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ إِنْ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ تَسُؤْكُمْ وَإِنْ تَسْأَلُوا عَنْهَا حِينَ يُنَزَّلُ الْقُرْآنُ تُبْدَ لَكُمْ عَفَا اللَّهُ عَنْهَا وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ))

"O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allah has pardoned that which is past; and Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing."

• Your saying "رخصة...": "permit": It is a permit from the haram, and that means it is halal.
• Your saying "عفو...": "Pardon": It is a pardon from the haram, and that means it is halal.
• Your saying: "فلا تبحثوا عنها" "So do not go enquiring into these": This means do not search for its prohibition, so that it will be made prohibited due to your asking. It does not mean for you not to search for other than its prohibition, because the topic is not asking the question that leads to prohibition in the time of the revelation, so that the issue would be made prohibited because of the question as is in the hadith

«إِنَّ أَعْظَمَ المُسْلِمِينَ جُرْمًا، مَنْ سَأَلَ عَنْ شَيْءٍ لَمْ يُحَرَّمْ، فَحُرِّمَ مِنْ أَجْلِ مَسْأَلَتِهِ»

"The most sinful person among the Muslims is the one who asked about something which had not been prohibited, but was prohibited because of his asking."

As for asking in other issues, it is required to know the rulings as in the hadith of Abu Dawud on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger (saw) said:

«...أَلَا سَأَلُوا إِذْ لَمْ يَعْلَمُوا فَإِنَّمَا شِفَاءُ الْعِيِّ السُّؤَالُ»

"Ask what you do not know, for the Medicine for ignorance is inquiry."

I hope that the answer was clarified.