Boycotting Another Muslim | 7 |

by The Albaani Site


Continuing from the last post.

Questioner: … [in this case] he has not repented.

Al-Albaani: He has not repented.

Questioner: So if he has not repented nor turned back to Allaah.

Al-Albaani: But you are not referring to this …

Questioner: … branching off from this question is another which is that in reality the boycotter may not restrict the matter to himself only but generalises it to include his family, his children, preventing them from talking to the other person [being boycotted] and his children and so on, likewise now …

Al-Albaani: And it has become apparent to all that the man has repented and turned back to Allaah.

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: The same is said [about this situation]: it is not permissible for these people [you just mentioned] to continue upon that.

Questioner: Okay, the applicability of the situation [to the heirs of the one being boycotted if he died] … if the person being boycotted died … his children and family … bearing in mind that each person is responsible for himself … i.e., the issue is between those two parties …

Al-Albaani: I.e., Abu Yahyaa, you mean that the one being boycotted has children who are now being boycotted …

Questioner: … due to him [i.e., due to the fact that their father was being boycotted].

Al-Albaani: Due to him … this is not allowed. For no soul bears the burden of another.

Questioner: It’s clear from many hadiths, we would like hadiths which show that it is permissible for a Muslim to boycott another [for permissible reasons].

Al-Albaani: Boycotting occurred between the Companions, those three who remained behind and who were boycotted for fifty days.

Interjection: The proof is mentioned in the text of the Quraan.

Questioner: Is this proof applicable to all Muslims [in general], or was it specially revealed for a certain situation. I.e., is there another proof clarifying/explaining it for others [in terms of applicability], because this proof …

Al-Albaani: Your asking whether there is another aayah regarding it … this happens very often with me, on the phone [the Shaikh will give someone an answer on the phone and then that person will ask for another proof] and so I say to them, ‘This hadith didn’t please you that you have to ask for another?’

And I [now], for example, have to bring two or three hadith about the issue?

This is not conceivable [i.e., it is not conceivable that every question asked will have more than one proof]. If in the Legislation, in the Noble Quraan, it has been established that boycotting is permissible it is not befitting that it then be said, ‘Is there any other proof?’  Why?

Because this question gives the impression to those present that this proof [from the Quraan] is not enough and for this reason we are asking for another. This is a side point which has no connection with the topic, it’s just a reminder of making one’s method of questioning good, and asking questions well/correctly is half of knowledge, as was said of old.

After this [point] I say: it has been established that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم boycotted his wives for a month, and the thing I fear the most is that another question will come also saying, ’Is there another hadith apart from this one? Because this one is connected to the wives of the Prophet and …’

Listen to the answer now: the purpose of the first boycotting mentioned in the Quraan, and the purpose of the second mentioned in the Prophetic hadiths … a question we should think about is: is it something related purely to worship whose meaning cannot be understood or is its meaning understood?

Questioner: Its meaning is understood.

Al-Albaani: Its meaning is understandable. So, when there is a text whose ruling is understood and it is not something related purely to worship, and we have nothing but this text then we have to stop at it and not go beyond it.

So now in front of us are two texts, why did the Prophet عليه السلام order his most Noble Companions to boycott those three who remained behind? There is no doubt that the answer is in order to discipline them. Why did the Prophet boycott his wives? [Again,] to discipline them.

So now we say: why did Zaid boycott Amr? If it is in the same manner then the proof from the Quraan and authentic Sunnah is enough, but the difference, without doubt, is very clear, in that the boycotting of … I will not go too far [and will give you an example even closer to home] … the boycotting of Al-Albaani of Zaid or Bakr or Amr is not like the boycotting of those Companions who were directly ordered to cut off from those [three] who remained behind, and even more so: it is not like the boycotting of the Prophet of his wives, because he is infallible.

[So] what is important is that the boycotter, who in this case is Al-Albaani [as an example], is doing so to discipline/educate. Boycotting to discipline whom? The boycotted person.  So if he is correct in doing so then he will be rewarded and his example is [taken from] the Book and the Sunnah.  And if he is mistaken and there is room for someone to show him how he is mistaken then we welcome that and say, ‘O Abu Bilaal! May Allaah have mercy on the one who guides me to my faults [so that I can correct them].’

… Shaikh Ali [Hasan al-Halabi] here has reminded us of a hadith which is that Abdullaah ibn Umar al-Khattaab narrated a hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم one day saying that he said, ‘Allow the women to go to the mosques at night.’ So one of Abdullaah ibn Umar’s sons said, ‘By Allaah! I will not allow them to go out.’ So the father said to the son, ‘I say to you that Allaah’s Messenger said such and such, and you say, ‘I will not do it?’ By Allaah! I will never speak to you again.’

I say to you that Allaah’s Messenger said, and you say the opposite of what the Prophet said? By Allaah, I will never speak to you again! And he didn’t speak to him until he died. And the hadith … listen … the hadith is in Sahih Muslim, what do we think Ibn Umar’s intent was in …

Questioner: To discipline/educate him.

Al-Albaani: To discipline/educate him.

Questioner: I have another hadith, O Ustaadh.

Al-Albaani: Bring it, let’s have a look. Only, inshaa Allaah, your hadith will be like his [i.e., the one Shaikh Ali mentioned], strong.

Questioner: One of the Companions was hunting by throwing stones, Abdullaah ibn … another Companion saw him, I don’t recall the names now, he told him that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade al-Khadhf which is to … so he found him …

Al-Albaani: Yes, yes.

Questioner: So another time he saw this Companion doing the same thing and so said to him, ‘I said to you, ‘The Prophet عليه السلام forbade [this] and you’re still carrying on hunting like this …’ He then said, ‘I will never speak to you.’ [Translator’s note: here is the text of the hadith the questioner is referring to from Sahih al-Bukhaari: The book of Slaughtering and Hunting, Al-Khadhf (throwing stones with the middle finger and the thumb) and Al-Bunduqa (a ball of clay thrown through a hollow stick or the like).

Narrated Abdullaah bin Maghaffal that he saw a man throwing stones with two fingers (at something) and said to him, ‘Do not throw stones, for Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم has forbidden throwing stones, or he used to dislike it.’ ‘Abdullaah added, ‘Throwing stones will neither hunt a game, nor kill (or hurt) an enemy, but it may break a tooth or gouge out an eye.’ Afterwards ‘Abdullaah once again saw the man throwing stones. He said to him, ‘I tell you that Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم has forbidden or disliked throwing stones (in such a way), yet you are throwing stones! I shall not talk to you for such-and-such a period.’]

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: Even his expression, Ustaadh, he says, ‘May the same roof not shelter us!’ How do we gather between this action and the saying of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم which prohibits [boycotting] for more than three days?

Al-Albaani: May Allaah forgive you, may Allaah forgive you.  My dear brother, we said that the boycotting which is forbidden is the one done for worldly reasons to vent one’s anger against whom? The opponent. As for the legislated boycotting then it is for an educational purpose, so now you’re question is not applicable.

Questioner: Okay, Abdullah ibn Umar raising [his son], he’s the father, you’d think that Abdullaah … the boy’s father, who brought his son up, he brought his son up, i.e., a Companion from the Companions of Allaah’s Messenger, he didn’t refrain from what he said … [Compiler’s note: the questioner is trying to say can it be pictured that the son of Abdullaah ibn Umar, being the son of a Companion, wasn’t inhibited from doing what he did? So then Shaikh al-Albaani explains below that this is another issue and that Abdullaah ibn Umar boycotted his son because he did not show the correct manners in relation to a saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم so Abdullaah ibn Umar saw it correct to be stern on his son as a punishment because he is the son of a Companion and because he is from the first generation and if the Companions had been lax with everyone who ignored the Prophetic Sunnah, the Sunnah would be lost.]

Al-Albaani: This is another issue, this is another issue, we want to know why it was that Abdullaah ibn Umar boycotted his son and never spoke to him until he died, out of a desire to discipline/educate him, regarding the incorrect stance he had taken in relation to the saying of the Prophet عليه السلام.

As for the issue of whether he repented or not this does not concern us as regards the issue [we’re discussing at the moment], what concerns us is why Abdullaah boycotted his son: was it to vent his own [personal] anger or was it retaliation on behalf of the saying of his Prophet and in order to champion the hadith of his Prophet?

It was, without doubt, for this reason.

So this is the difference … and the legislated boycotting and the unlegislated one …, i.e., two people argue with each other, this happens a lot for worldly reasons, so as we said when explaining the hadith and commenting on it … we gave the example that they boycott for three days and then what? The better of the two is the one who gives his brother salaam first, because there was no boycotting for the Sake of Allaah in this example.

The boycotting for the Sake of Allaah continues except when it is plainly clear, as we said at the end of the last discussion, [when it is plainly clear] that the boycotted person has repented and turned back to Allaah.

For example, a person doesn’t pray so his brother boycotts him, or his friend, or his beloved and so on, and explains the reason he is being boycotted, not hiding that reason from him, [but tells him why, saying,] ‘[It is] because you don’t pray …,’ so he remains like that for a long period, a short period [whatever is the case], and then the person starts to pray to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.  So [now] the justification to boycott him has gone, and so on …

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor 154.