Here is the PDF version of all the separate posts in one place. If you want to save it, right click on the link and go to ‘Save Link/Target As’:
Questioner: In the talks of the brother Kamaal, he described the Salafis as having harshness and not being kind, so I don’t know, do you think … that this feature is the one most common, the Saved Sect inshaa Allaah they are the strangers, or is it a characteristic of some people and what is your advice regarding this issue?
Al-Albaani: By Allaah my brother, I believe that there is a basis for this accusation but that it is exaggerated. We cannot free ourselves from faults such as this but I also think that the opponents of the da’wah exaggerate its extent.
And there are reasons for that some of which are from the nature of the jamaa’ah [itself], and some of them are from the nature of its opponents. If there is a jamaa’ah ordering the good and forbidding the evil from the generality of Muslims then it is this group.
For this reason when they urge the enjoining of good and forbiddance of evil it appears to those other people who are overly lenient in upholding this obligation [themselves] that there is harshness and extremism is in it.
For this reason the oppressive international disbelieving media calls these [so called] extremists, ‘fundamentalists’, because they are distinct from the others due to the fact that they are very eager for their Islaam and their religion to be a judge on earth, so this is what is connected to the reality of these strangers or the people of creed or the saved sect.
Another thing which may be a fault in them or some of them and no group or jamaa’ah is free of this, is that at times harshness may emanate from them which should not do so, but then this is exaggerated and then all who follow this correct methodology become included in it, and thus the matter moves from reality to imagination.
So for these two reasons, one of which is connected to the reality of these people who uphold this obligation which others do not uphold except the very few who are rare, and the other which is connected to their opponents who are not happy with this methodology which they tread upon especially when they are trying to tackle issues which those other [overly-lenient] people regard as secondary issues, this is what they call it [i.e., ‘secondary’ issues] when they are being soft, for otherwise they have called it [by names such as] ‘trivial’ and they say it is a cause for disunity … and so on …
So this is what I see to be an answer to your question.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 609.
Many times severing ties and harshness occur due to suspicions and mistaken impressions crossing one’s mind regarding one’s Muslim brother. So this hadith which is the last [to be mentioned] came along to warn and forbid us from having bad suspicions of a Muslim.
So he عليه الصلاة والسلام said, ‘Beware of suspicion, for it is the worst of false tales and don’t look for the other’s faults and don’t spy, and don’t hate each other, and don’t desert [cut your relations with] one another. O Allaah’s slaves, be brothers!’ Bukhaari 6724
In the first part of the hadith he forbids us from having evil suspicions of a Muslim brother and further clarifies that by saying that it is the worst of false tales, that you [for example] say, ‘So and so is like this, so and so is like that,’ [it is the worst of false tales because] you have no proof from Allaah the Mighty and Majestic for what you say, and if you did have a proof which permitted you to have evil suspicions about your brother then it is [still] not allowed to backbite him.
Rather, as we stated at the beginning of this lecture, it is upon you to advise him and guide him and direct him to that course which you see is in accordance with the Legislation.
And oftentimes this evil suspicion will push the one harbouring it to commit these violations which the Prophet عليه السلام mentioned along with the prohibition of having evil suspicions about a Muslim when he said, ‘…and don’t spy …’ ‘… don’t look for the other’s faults [tahassus] and don’t spy [tajassus] …’
Tajassus is to follow after a Muslim’s mistakes in order to defame him and slander him and vilify him. As for tahassus then some scholars say that both these words [i.e., tajassus and tahassus] have the same meaning, but the reality is that tahassus [i.e., ‘looking for the other’s faults’] has a meaning which differs from that of tajassus [i.e., ‘spying on’] because sometimes it is not correct to use the word tajassus in place of tahassus, for in the Noble Quraan there is the saying of Ya’qoob عليه السلام to his sons, ‘… go and find out [tahassasu] about Joseph …’ Yusuf 12:87
So tahassus is running after someone’s news, and listening to it, so here it is as though tahassus is more specific than tajassus.
Tahassus can be regarding something good and bad, but as for tajassus then it is only regarding evil. In this hadith the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited both things, he prohibited chasing up people’s affairs and spying, for affairs are judged by their intent, so if the purpose behind tahussus is to attain some good then there is no harm in it, as for tajassus then there is no good in it whatsoever, for this reason it is not allowed for a Muslim to follow up on and listen to what a Muslim says with the intent of chasing up his mistakes and hidden matters, and to land him in something he would not like.
‘Don’t spy and don’t be envious of one another,’ why does a person envy his Muslim brother?
This is something which most regrettably a person–almost–has a natural propensity for, and I say ‘almost’, because I do not believe that Allaah created a person with a natural disposition to envy his Muslim brother, that is why I said, ‘a person–almost–has a natural propensity for …’ [but I said this] due to just how much jealousy [does in fact] overcome the people.
And the reality is that this disease, jealousy, is a chronic one and how often it emerges amongst the wealthy–whether rich in material gains or wealthy in terms of knowledge. So the person who is rich in materials gains is envied by those like him, and the wealthy in knowledge is envied by those like him, and then that results in being a cause for hatred and envious people to enter.
And the Prophet عليه السلام said, educating/disciplining us, ‘…and don’t look for the other’s faults and don’t spy, and don’t hate each other, and don’t desert [cut your relations with] one another. O Allaah’s slaves, be brothers as Allaah the Blessed and Most High ordered you to,’ i.e., in His Saying, the Most High, ‘And hold firmly to the rope of Allaah all together and do not become divided.’ Aali-Imraan 3:103
So this was a speech and exhortation which I hope Allaah the Blessed and Most High will cause to be of benefit, and [I hope] that He grants us true brotherhood and friendship which we are all in need of actualising.
We ask Allaah the Mighty and Majestic to aid us in obeying Him in all that He has ordered.
Glory is to You, O Allah, and praise is to You. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but You. I seek Your forgiveness and repent to You.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 23.
End.
And there are some authentic hadiths which we are also in need of remembering practically and not [leaving it at] just [being acquainted with them] as a notion or a piece of knowledge, and [one of them is] his saying عليه الصلاة والسلام, “Do not hate one another, and do not be jealous of one another; and do not desert [cut your relations with] each other, and O Allaah’s worshippers! Be brothers. Lo! It is not permissible for any Muslim to desert [not talk to] his brother [Muslim] for more than three days.’” Bukhari no.6065
Why does he ostracise him? Out of hatred and jealousy, not for a legislated reason, not because he disobeyed Allaah and His Messenger; rather the worst that can be said is that: [the person being boycotted] disobeyed Allaah and His Messenger due to what the person arguing with him holds to be a misunderstanding, but he didn’t openly proclaim disobedience, he did not believe that this [i.e., what he was doing] was a sin yet despite that [it is possible that] he is disobeying Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, so then [because of that] one of us comes along and boycotts him.
There is no doubt that this boycotting is legislated but cutting off from one another due to a difference in views and in understanding is the turning away from one another which is prohibited in the first part of this hadith, “Do not hate one another, and do not be jealous of one another; and do not desert [cut your relations with] each other …” Additionally, this characteristic or type of manners, i.e., being jealous of one another is something which has spread amongst our Salafi brothers.
So at times in some areas there will be a dispute over who will give a speech or lesson … ‘No, I have more right!’ ‘No, he does!’ Yaa Jamaa’ah, fear Allaah regarding yourselves.
If there is someone who has some knowledge and he wants to share what he knows amongst the people then leave him and let him speak and aid him in that. Do not look at each other to gain superiority and by being arrogant towards him because you see him to be less than you in terms of knowledge, and he may see the situation to be the opposite to you, and thus dissension and conflict begin.
And as a result of that these issues which the Prophet عليه السلام forbade in the authentic hadith occur, “Do not hate one another, and do not be jealous of one another; and do not desert [cut your relations with] each other, and O Allaah’s worshippers! Be brothers. Lo! It is not permissible for any Muslim to desert [not talk to] his brother [Muslim] for more than three days.’”
It is obligatory to sever this boycotting and end it.
This hadith, in reality, is from the Mercy of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic upon His servants, because He did not forbid boycotting absolutely, but left open the opportunity for some sick souls to vent their anger and spite and jealousy within three days. It suffices a person to vent his anger through these three days, he has been allowed to do that. But if he exceeds that [time limit] then he has done something haraam.
And as occurs in some authentic hadiths, by exceeding the three days in which the Legislator has permitted him to boycott, he would deserve to enter the Fire, in another hadith [there occurs], ‘It is not allowed for a Muslim to boycott his brother for more than three. They meet and so this one turns away from that one, and that one from this. And the best of them is the one who initiates giving the salutation to his brother,’ i.e., if it is difficult for this Muslim who has, allowably, cut off from his brother for three days, but at the same time he has not forgotten the severe threat from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that it is not allowed for him to continue in that for more than three days, [if it is difficult for him] then the least that [can be done] … to actualise amicability between the two people who have cut off from each other after three days … immediately, straightaway it is enough to escape from this threat for him to initiate giving his brother salaam. Then after that salaam some talking will occur and after that talking some friendship … and so on. And as is said, ‘Rains start with a drop, and then pours forth.’
So nothing less than a Muslim taking the initiative to give salaam to his brother who he had boycotted on the third day and in that is an escape from the threat that accompanies boycotting … for three days.
Listen along with me to this prophetic saying from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and the threat it contains for the one who cuts off from his brother without a just cause, he صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ‘The Gates of Paradise are opened every Monday and Thursday, and every servant who does not associate anything with Allaah is forgiven …’ We rejoice at this, ‘Because we are the callers to tawheed, and we are the ones who raise the banner of calling to tawheed, and to eliminating any form of shirk with Allaah,’ so we then assume that we will enter Paradise without any reckoning or punishment, [like a flight] ‘in transit’ as is said today, because we are monotheists who do not associate anything in worship with Allaah–but this is not the case [i.e., we are not guaranteed Paradise].
Listen to this hadith and comprehend it and try to follow it as your model in your life, ‘The Gates of Paradise are opened every Monday and Thursday, and every slave who does not associate anything with Allaah is forgiven, except a man between whom and his brother is a grudge. It is said, ‘Wait for these two until they reconcile. Wait for these two until they reconcile. Wait for these two until they reconcile,’ i.e., wait for them and do not forgive them until they reconcile and return to being brothers, ‘… on thrones facing each other.’ Ibrahim 15:47
‘The Gates of Paradise are opened every Monday and Thursday, and every slave who does not associate anything with Allaah is forgiven, except a man between whom and his brother is a grudge. It is said, ‘Wait for these two until they reconcile. Wait for these two until they reconcile. Wait for these two until they reconcile,’ then in another hadith he عليه السلام said, ‘There are three whose prayer does not rise more than a hand span above their heads: A man who leads people [in prayer] when they do not like him; a woman who has spent the night with her husband angry with her; and two brothers who have severed contact with one another,’ i.e., cut off from one another, harbouring mutual enmity.
So the evil effect of boycotting, ostracising and leaving one another without a legislated justification apart from a difference in opinion is that [one’s] prayer is not raised to Allaah and is not accepted, as He the Most High said, “To Him ascends good speech, and righteous work raises it.” Faatir 35:10
So the prayer of these two who have severed contact with one another is not raised up to Allaah the Blessed and Most High.
The First Point: That we should bear in mind–that every one of us should keep in mind that revelation did not come down upon him regarding the opinion he holds, and that it is possible that he is mistaken and the person he is arguing and debating with is correct.
When a person discusses [an issue] with him, each one of us should spontaneously bring to mind the fact that we are not infallible, whatever one’s level from amongst us is, whether he is learning or a scholar.
How often the statement of the scholars is proven to be correct, ‘There can be found in the inferior person, what is not found in the superior.’ It is possible that the scholar is mistaken and the student is correct. The student maybe incorrect and the illiterate one who does not know may be correct.
Summoning this reality makes a person careful and causes him to stop at the truth [not being arrogant and rejecting it when it is pointed out by] the person he is having a discussion with.
And this is a type of manners taken from the Noble Quran, because Allaah the Mighty and Majestic mentioned in His Book that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to address his people, who were polytheists–and what a difference there is between the polytheists in their misguidance and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Companions in their eemaan–yet along with that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic taught him this lofty [part of] manners which we expressed as tolerance, so He said in the Noble Quran, “And indeed, we or you are either upon guidance or in clear error. Say, ‘You will not be asked about what we committed, and we will not be asked about what you do.’” Saba 34:24-25
So this is the highest degree of tolerance during a debate, it does not mean a Muslim relinquishes his belief but in it is an assumption that one of the two groups is on the truth and the other is upon misguidance.
Who is this group [which is on misguidance]? He did not specify it here but whenever he calls them to having faith, telling them that if they disbelieve in what he صلى الله عليه وسلم has brought from Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, then, “Indeed, you [disbelievers] and what you worship other than Allaah are the firewood of Hell. You will be coming to [enter] it,” Anbiyaa 21:98 [this is] when he declares his belief to them and explains their lot if they continue to oppose him صلى الله عليه وسلم.
[But] when he debates with them he صلى الله عليه وسلم says, “And indeed, we or you are either upon guidance or in clear error.” This is how the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام addressed the polytheists, so how then should one of us address one of his own?
There is no doubt that he must be humble with him and show him tolerance, and not launch an all-out attack on him and become distant from him as one enemy does from another.
This aayah is very important, and we should remember it well, “And indeed, we or you are either upon guidance or in clear error. Say, ‘You will not be asked about what we committed, and we will not be asked about what you do.’”
The Imaam continues, “Without doubt it was through the sending of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to them with the Book of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, and through his clarification/explanation [of it] عليه الصلاة والسلام.
Do you think we have a share in this aayah? We thank Allaah that we have a portion not to be slighted of this aayah where Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, spoke … especially its middle part [where He said], “And remember the favour of Allaah upon you–when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favour, brothers.”
What is it that brought our hearts together and gathered us together here and there? It is nothing but eemaan in the obligation of returning to the Book and the Sunnah and returning to them for judgement always and forever … such that if something appears which indicates that there will be some difference and disunity, as He, the Most High, said, in the aayah which you all know very well, “And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allaah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allaah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.” Nisaa 4:59 … this is from what Allaah the Blessed and Most High has blessed and favoured us with …
… the Mighty and Majestic addressed us in the generality of the text whereas He addressed the Companions with it specifically, saying, “…And remember the favour of Allaah upon you–when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favour, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it.”
We used to be as most of the Muslims today live, and they are Muslims, but the Saying of Allaah the Blessed and Most High applies to a lot of them if not most of them, “And most of them believe not in Allaah except while they associate others with Him.” Yusuf 12:106
“… Alhamdulillaah, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has saved us from shirk, rather from all forms of shirk, so this is from the greatest of blessings upon us …”
So, alhamdulillaah, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has saved us from shirk, rather from all forms of shirk, so this is from the greatest of blessings upon us. But we have to realise the completion of this blessing upon us by agreeing and not differing, as the beginning of this aayah orders us, “And hold firmly to the rope of Allaah all together and do not become divided.”
That which confirms or that which can be a cause to preserve the unity of our ranks and unite our word if something which hints at division occurs, is what I said just now: sincerely advising one another regarding the religion of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic.
But this advice has to be as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic ordered in the following aayah, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.” Nahl 16:125
We read this in the Quraan all the time, but how often we, regretfully, leave [the limits set by] this aayah and do not implement it, nor do we call our brothers who share with us in our inclination and this Salafi methodology [based upon it], let alone other than them. Rarely do we follow this way and path which Allaah the Blessed and Most High ordered us with.
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” Arguing in a way that is best requires what we mentioned just now: some tolerance, and this tolerance demands two things from us …”
The Shaikh continued, “It is lamentable that there is some disunity and discord for extremely petty reasons; as such it is obligatory to keep before our eyes what is, in today’s language, called, ‘religious tolerance,’ [at-tassamuh ad-deeni]–but with the meaning which Islaam allows.
‘Religious tolerance’ can be expanded to an extent which Islaam does not permit, but we know the correct meaning of tolerance; which is if we see that a person who is not a Salafi–let alone if he is a Salafi–has a specific opinion or independent judgement [ijtihaad], or that he really has made a mistake in some of his actions, that we do not rush to scold him and then to boycott him. Rather it is obligatory upon us to traverse the path of giving sincere advice, which was what we started this talk with when we mentioned the hadith, ‘The religion is sincerity, the religion is sincerity …’
So if we advise him and he responds to it, then that is what we want, and if he does not respond then there is not any cause [for blame] upon us, and it is not permissible that we rush to ostracise him.
Rather it is [incumbent] upon us to remain with him, persevering in advising him from time to time, and now and then, until he becomes firm and upright on the correct path.
We note in many of our private gatherings let alone others, that an issue with two adversaries will have each one trying to pull the topic to favour himself, he will not present the issue without it being for him or against the other person, as should be the case in discussions to reach the truth as Allaah the Blessed and Most High ordered, and not to show that I, I am the one who is correct and he is not.
“… I will call to mind some texts from the noble aayahs which will benefit us in this regard and take us back, if Allaah wills, to being one hand, one rank, with not a single one of us boycotting any of his brothers, but rather persisting in instructing and advising him …”
As such, on this occasion we must remember that the aayahs and some authentic hadiths, knowledge of which I do not think is hidden from anyone of us, but whose implementation and execution is … for this reason [on this occasion] and using my weak memory, I will call to mind some texts from the noble aayahs which will benefit us in this regard and take us back, if Allaah wills, to being one hand, one rank, with not a single one of us boycotting any of his brothers, but rather persisting in instructing and advising him.
So all of us know the Saying of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, “The believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allaah that you may receive mercy.” Hujuraat 49:10 Here fearing Allaah is a general order to be distant from every act of disobedience to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and to His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.
From that is following the guidance and light which Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and His Messenger ordered us to follow, likewise from that is what He mentioned before the order to fear Him which was to, “…make settlement between your brothers …” so reconciliation between the brothers should be attempted when there is an indication that there is something which could lead to disunity. And disunity is not restricted only to disagreement in aqidah, but rather to disagreements in the tenets [Ahkaam] of the Legislation which [our] noble Islaam came with.
This aayah, “The believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allaah that you may receive mercy,” … so the mercy which we all hope for from Allaah the Blessed and Most High is only obtained by fearing Him, the Mighty and Majestic. For this reason it is [incumbent] upon us to make peace between the differing parties.
Likewise in the Noble Quraan there occurs, “And hold firmly to the rope of Allaah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favour of Allaah upon you–when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favour, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allaah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided.” Aali Imraan 3:103
There is no doubt that this aayah was [initially] directly addressing the Companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, for He addressed them, saying, “… And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it …” through what means was this deliverance [achieved]?
Without doubt it was through …”
The Imaam said, “All Praise is due to Allaah, we praise Him, and seek His help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allaah, the Most High, from the evils of our own selves and from our wicked deeds. Whosoever has been guided by Allaah, none can misguide him, and whosoever has been misguided by Allaah, none can guide him. I bear witness that there is no true god worthy of being worshipped except Allaah, Alone, without partner or associate. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His true slave and Messenger.
O you who believe! Fear Allaah as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islaam (as Muslims with complete submission to Allaah). Aali-Imraan 3:102
O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam) and from him He created his wife, and from them both He created many men and women, and fear Allaah through Whom you demand your mutual (rights) and (do not cut the relations of) the wombs (kinship). Surely, Allaah is ever an All-Watcher over you. An-Nisaa 4:1
O you who believe! Keep your duty to Allaah and fear Him, and speak (always) the Truth, He will direct you to do righteous good deeds and will forgive you your sins. And whosoever obeys Allaah and His Messenger, he has indeed achieved a great success. Al-Ahzaab 33: 70-71
As for what follows: Then the best of speech is the Speech of Allaah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The worst of affairs are the newly-invented matters, and every newly-invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance and all misguidance is in the Fire.
The [following] saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is known amongst us all, ‘The religion is sincerity, the religion is sincerity, the religion is sincerity.’ We asked, “To whom, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “To Allaah, His Book, His Messenger, and the leaders of the Muslims and to the common Muslim.’
And it is obligatory upon every sincere advisor to direct advice to we Muslims today from the general folk, more particularly, we Salafis who make up a large proportion of this huge number of Muslims, and who are proud that Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, has favoured them over many Muslims by facilitating the understanding of tawheed for them, which is the foundation for being saved in the Hereafter from the enduring punishment, … tawheed which we have studied and come to know well and which we have fulfilled through [our] aqidah.
But I feel, and sorrow fills my heart, that what you see regarding ourselves when we stop at this aqidah and what it entails, from those things which are known such as acting upon the Book and the Sunnah and not putting anything else but the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم forward … we have taken this stance, of correctly understanding tawheed, which it is obligatory on every Muslim to take, and to act upon what is established in the Book and the Sunnah concerning that which is connected to fiqh which has, through the passing of these many years, split into various schools of thought and divided ways …
But it appears, and this is what I have repeated on many occasions, that this Islamic world, which includes the Salafis themselves, has become preoccupied from [focusing on] an important aspect of this Islaam which we have adopted as an ideology. A general, all-encompassing Islaam for all aspects of life–and from that is manners and being upright on the Path.
Many of us do not give importance to this aspect of Islaam, i.e., to improving manners and [one’s] conduct. We read the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in the books of the authentic Sunnah, ‘Indeed a man will reach the ranks of the one who stands to pray at night and fasts during the day through his good manners.’ And in the Noble Quraan we read that the Muslims splitting amongst themselves is not from Islamic manners, especially we Salafis, over things that do not necessitate differing or discord; concerning that we read His Saying, the Most High, ‘… and do not dispute and [thus] lose courage and [then] your strength would depart …’ Anfaal 8:46.
And indeed what is truly sad is that we hear–and not only in the Islamic countries–that the Muslims have divided into many groups and numerous sects, even in the current battle between them and the disbelievers who invaded some of the lands [of the Muslims], like our brothers for example in Afghanistan. All of us know that they are now in a battle with the communists, but regretfully they have divided into groups. And the cause for that is nothing but turning away from some of the direction that Islaam has given regarding uniting and throwing aside schism and discord, the previous aayah is clear about that, ‘… and do not dispute and [thus] lose courage and [then] your strength would depart …’ Anfaal 8:46.
I say: this differing and conflict did not stop at the borders of those countries far from us, but rather it has reached us too.
And we Salafis who claim that we cling to the Book and the authentic Sunnah–we are not rejecting the favour of Allaah the Blessed and Most High on us, wherewith He guided us to tawheed and to acting upon what is established in the Book and the Sunnah–but isn’t it established in the Book and the Sunnah that we do not envy each other, nor hate each other and that we be brothers as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic ordered us in His Book and His Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in his sunnah? Yes.
This is something which we know as being a piece of knowledge, but which we did not implement practically. And maybe we will [hopefully] implement and strive for it rapidly.
It is lamentable that there is some disunity and discord for extremely petty reasons; as such it is obligatory to …”
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: O Shaikh! Regarding hating a person, isn’t it so that a person must love his brother for the Sake of Allaah, and hate for the Sake of Allaah, give for His Sake and withhold for His Sake [too] … by hating, I should hate someone for their ideology not for their person, if he is a Muslim and prays, not hatred …, I hate, for example, his ideology and not him personally?
Al-Albaani: I do not think there is a distinction between the two things except when the dislike of the person who is doing the action which is in opposition to the legislation leads to ostracising him, then [we say that] it is not allowed to hate him to that extent.
Namely, boycotting someone is not done just because a person falls into something which opposes the Sharee’ah, for if that were the case then the entire Islamic community would be taken to pieces because not a single one of us is free of something which another person may dislike in him, putting aside whether this hatred is regarding something justifiable–we are now only talking about hatred when it’s justifiable, so what do you think if it is for something false.
There is not a single one of us except that another person will dislike something in him. So boycotting is inapplicable due to such a dislike. But we do not imagine that we dislike the evil action committed by this person while [at the same time] not disliking the source of the action. So these are two things which it is not possible for us to split one from the other.
But I say that it is fitting that when we dislike someone for a wrong action he has done it does not necessarily mean that we are allowed to break relations with him, clear?
And this boycotting, without doubt, is a means of educating in Islaam but it, firstly, is implemented only concerning a person who performed a disliked deed which is not customary of him, and secondly it must be noted whether the boycotting will realize the desired goal, which is to educate this person and bring him back to the correct path. So if the boycotting will realize this goal then it should be done and if not, then it shouldn’t.
Many of our practicing brothers always discuss [the issue of] boycotting a person: for example, [boycotting] someone who has left praying or is a backbiter or a tale-carrier or who does some well-known sins, so the question about whether we should boycott him is asked. And this person they are asking about may be a relative, even a close relative through marriage or blood.
So we turn the attention of those asking this question to this principle: do you feel that if you boycott this person who is doing such and such, that it will benefit him or will his stance be, as I mention sometimes, like that of the man who used to be a sinner, someone who had left the worship of his Lord, who then repented and resolved to pray his first prayer at the mosque. He went to the mosque and found it closed, and so said, ‘You’re closed and I have a day off [from praying].’
So if this person who you want to boycott has no concern about your boycotting him, what is the benefit of it then?
Rather, the opposite is correct–that you stay in touch with him, advising him, reminding him every time the opportunity arises.
So, firstly, boycotting is not done for some trivial reason and secondly, even if it is to be done for something which the person doing it deserves to be boycotted over, it is obligatory upon us to study the situation of the community/society we live in.
And from that about which there is no doubt is the fact that, with deep regret, the community today does not help the Muslims who want to boycott another since the reality is that he will not even care about this ostracism.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 563.
Questioner: Is what we hear correct that in this day and age boycotting the innovators should not be implemented?
Al-Albaani: He wants to say that it is not right that it should be implemented. Is it correct that it should not be implemented? It is not implemented, because the innovators and the disobedient Muslims sinners [faasiqs] and criminals [faajirs] are the majority today, but he is trying to say that it is not right that it is implemented, and it is as though the first person the questioner is referring to is me: so I say yes, it is as such, it is not right to implement it, and I have said this openly just now when I gave you that Syrian proverb, ‘You are closed and I have a day off,’ yes.
Questioner: But, for example, when an environment is found, and the majority in it are from Ahlus-Sunnah, for example, and thereafter some people who have deviated from the path of truth [nawaabidh] are found who innovated into the Religion of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, in that situation is it implemented or not?
Al-Albaani: In the Jamaa’ah itself?
Questioner: In that environment which the people of truth dominate and then innovation became apparent in it, what do you say about this situation?
Al-Albaani: It is obligatory here to use wisdom. The strong, uppermost group, if it boycotts the group which has deviated from the Jamaa’ah–going back to what we already said–will that defend/aid the group which is clinging to the Truth or will it harm them? This is as regards them [i.e., the group on the truth].
Thereafter, will it benefit those being boycotted by the Aided Group or will it harm them, the answer to this has preceded, i.e., it is not right that we act upon these affairs based upon zealousness and emotions but rather with careful deliberation, tolerance and wisdom.
Because we, for example … [imagine] one of these people deviated [from the truth], he opposed the Jamaa’ah, … [and then the reaction from those who want to cut him off will be], ‘Boycott him! Don’t be kind to him!’ [Rather you should] advise him, guide him, and so on, accompany him for a while, then when you, firstly, despair of him and, secondly, think that his infection will spread to Zaid and Bakr [i.e., other people], then he is cut off when it is believed that boycotting will be the cure, and as is said, the last cure one resorts to is cauterization [i.e., boycotting is the last resort].
Generally, nowadays, I do not advise the use of boycotting whatsoever, because it harms more than it benefits.
And the greatest proof of that is the fitnah that is on-going now in the Hijaz. The call of tawheed and the call of the Book and the Sunnah unites all of them but some of them have specific activities, whether in politics or other views which are not known from any of the people of knowledge before, and it [i.e., what they say] may be correct and it may be wrong. [But] we cannot tolerate anything new that we hear especially if it appears to us to be something which, at first suggestion [i.e., without giving it any careful thought], we don’t recognize. We attack it straight away, this is a mistake, my brother:
You want a friend with no faults
And does aloes wood [Oud] give off its fragrance without smoke?
We [earnestly] hope that the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon are with us on Tawheed alone [if nothing else], so that we can be with them, for they are not pleased with us even in aqidah and they say that rousing these differences splits the ranks and divides the people … and so on.
These brothers [in the Hijaaz] who a group have split away from or who split away from a group [themselves], and Allaah knows best … they are with us all the way regarding the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih, but they came with something new, some of it is wrong and some of it is correct.
So why do we spread dissension, partisanship and bigotry amongst ourselves, such that whereas once we were a single block we became two, three, they became … became Surooris … and so on, Allaahu Akbar.
And nothing divided them which deserved to be split over: there is no difference in the major issues which it cannot be imagined the Salafis would differ in. We all know that the Companions differed in some issues, but their methodology was one.
For this reason if you take it that some individuals from the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and the Aided Sect have deviated, then we deal with them with kindness and tenderness, Yaa akhi, and we try to keep them with the Jamaa’ah and we don’t ostracise them nor boycott them except when we fear something from them–and this does not become apparent straight away, i.e., just because someone has an opinion in which he disagrees [with the Jamaa’ah] and has strayed from the Jamaa’ah it is not fitting that we immediately ostracise and boycott him.
But rather we should wait and be patient until maybe Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, guides his heart or it becomes clear to us that leaving him is better.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 666.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good … a question, O Shaikh, … with us in Kuwait is a group of practising Muslim youth who do not like/feel comfortable with others although there are no takes [criticsm] on the religion of those others, but [one of these youths may say], ‘I just don’t like him, personally, I don’t feel comfortable concerning him.’ And when he is corrected he cites as proof the hadith of Wahshi and the time the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him, ‘Can you hide your face from me?’ So they say that here the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم personal disposition … the man [i.e., Wahshi] came having repented [but the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم still told him to hide his face from him], so they use this hadith as a proof, if you could clarify this for us.
Al-Albaani: This hadith cannot be used as a proof in this context. It is true that he came, repentant, but in the soul of the Prophet عليه السلام was sorrow which neither the passing of days nor time could wipe out because of the fact that Wahshi killed his uncle, Hamzah.
So [concerning your question] what did this person who that other one does not feel comfortable with do? What he did is nothing.
For this reason citing this as a proof in reality shows us that we live in a time in which people try to walk before they can crawl [Editor’s. note: the Arabic proverb the Shaikh used translated literally reads, ‘… tries to become a dried raisin before he becomes a sour grape …’], and they feign knowledge whilst being ignorant, and they are not scholars. So this deduction is extremely poor because it is not compatible with the incident [mentioned in the question].
Imagine that a person unjustly, out of oppression and enmity, killed a Muslim’s brother and then came to the murdered person’s brother, repentant, and from his behaviour it is apparent that he really has repented, but the murdered person’s brother said to him, ‘Hide your face from me,’ this situation is not like that one [mentioned in the question], because this person killed his brother unjustly, and as a result he doesn’t want to disturb the [remaining] peace in his life by looking at his brother’s murderer, for example.
So this situation differs [from the one in the question], and we ask Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, to give us understanding of the religion and to teach us its interpretation.
Questioner: I.e., is he sinful in doing that, O Shaikh?
Al-Albaani: Without doubt, because this is turning away from one another and cutting off.
Questioner: Is it not from desires?
Al-Albaani: It is, without doubt, following desires.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 237.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: If there was, O Shaikh, a man from the common folk who prays but who, in character, is as sly as a fox, such that whoever comes across him finds it difficult to deal with him … a specific dispute occurred between you and him in which he was at fault, he advocated/defended what was wrong. It was not a dispute over a fiqh issue, just something normal, so after the debate/dispute is over, you meet him in the street and say, ‘As-Salaamu alaikum,’ but he does not reply to you, so you stop greeting him with salaam, and you are happy that he did not reply to your salutation because in that you saw an end to his evil [i.e., you don’t have to deal with him anymore]. So is this action legislated [i.e., permissible] or do I have to be happy to give him salaam every time I meet him?
Al-Albaani: If you gave him salaam every time you met him, then that is better, and if you turned away from him, then that is permissible.
Questioner: Jazaakallaahu khair.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 192.
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.
Questioner: One of the other things I noted about this good, alhamdulillaah, [Islamic] awakening, and this interest in knowledge is that [unfortunately] the proportion [of people] turning towards memorising the Book of Allaah and also lessons [where] tafseer is [studied] is very low.
Al-Albaani: [Something] very rare [indeed].
Questioner: If not non-existent, what do you think?
Al-Albaani: This is what I have [previously] mentioned in some gatherings. O brothers, I want to see one of you who has memorised the Quraan. Such that when I, for example, need an aayah and am not able to recall it then I can get help from some of you.
Those who memorise the Quraan are not found except for the very few. And the cause centres entirely around the fact that seeking knowledge today is not done sincerely for the Face of Allaah. This is a calamity.
Questioner: Part of that too are lessons in tafseer, now in Riyadh we have [only] a very limited number of lessons in tafseer.
Al-Albaani: Sorry?
Questioner: I was saying that …
Al-Albaani: Nowadays it is [as though it is] the turn of the study of the science of hadith and that’s it.
Questioner: Yes.
Al-Albaani: And the reason is very clear: it is the lack of sincerity in seeking knowledge for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 599.
Questioner: Namely, is it correct to say that … that it is the intention that defines the permissibility or not of backbiting?
Al-Albaani: Yes, it’s just that the intention without doubt is the reference point for all actions, but what I wanted to bring to [your] attention was that a person has to look at himself and not boycott his brother for a purely worldly reason while imagining that he is only boycotting him with the intention of disciplining him.
And a person may lie, for example, or fabricate something, and so another person will boycott him, but saying such a lie or making such a fabrication is not from the nature of this person who is now being boycotted, so it is upon a person to advise and remind him of the forbiddance of what he has done.
For if not, when the door of boycotting another Muslim is opened just because he has committed a mistake then it would mean that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to boycott each other and to cut off from each other and to turn away from each other and that they not be brothers as Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, described them. This is what I wanted to turn your attention to.
Questioner: And on top of that the religion is to sincerely advise one another..
Another Questioner: Namely, if the purpose of disciplining him has been met, who decides that the goal has been reached?
Al-Albaani: When repentance and the fact that he has turned back to Allaah become apparent from the person being boycotted, or at the very least an apology for what he did; we cannot ask for any more than that.
Questioner: Namely, when the one boycotting insists [on boycotting] despite the repentance of the person being boycotted, what is the role of the other Muslims [regarding this]?
Al-Albaani: After he has repented?
Questioner: Yes, the man repented from his mistake, but the one boycotting is still boycotting him and determined on doing so–is there then a role for his friends, relatives or family [to play]?
Al-Albaani: It is as though I understand from your question, and Allaah knows best, [that you are asking] what the role of these other people is, not in relation to the one being boycotted but to the one boycotting, i.e., is the situation turned on its head and the one who was boycotting [himself now] boycotted?
Questioner: … the one boycotted has repented and turned back to Allaah and acknowledged his mistake, but the one boycotting is persisting [in his stance], so should he be left … or, namely, is there something which should be done by a person working on the issue[/involved in the situation, like] going to the one boycotting him and telling him …
Al-Albaani: That must be done, … as for the fact that it is advice, then the Shaikh, the Khateeb [in this mosque] gave this advice [reminding us in the sermon] that the religion is to sincerely advise one another and this was a reminder of the obligation of advising one another.
So if the one who was being boycotted repented and turned back to Allaah, and the one boycotting continued in his boycotting then he is wrong. We do not now say that the tables should be turned as I alluded to earlier, jokingly, the situation is not turned on its head so that the one who was boycotting is now [himself] boycotted, but he should be told that his role has come to an end.
Questioner: And if the one being boycotted tried … two times, three times, but the other person remained firm on his stance of boycotting, is there something that should be required of him …?
Al-Albaani: I’m sorry, the one being boycotted did what?
Questioner: He tried more than one time to give salaam to the other and approach him but the other refuses and insists [on his stance], how long should he carry on trying, namely, is he, by just trying once, twice or three times, not required to try anymore or should he continue trying for the rest of his life …
Al-Albaani: Abu Yahyaa is speaking about the one being boycotted.
Questioner: The one being boycotted tried to dispel the enmity with the one boycotting him, trying one time, another and a third, but that person is insisting on his stance. So the role of the one being boycotted now … he suffices himself by having tried once, twice, three times, and he will lose his mind if he keeps on trying for the rest of his life …
Al-Albaani: This is unreasonable …
Questioner: This is my question?
Al-Albaani: Okay, after your question has become clear then his part [in trying to rectify the affair] has ended and the situation is turned around in relation to the one boycotting such that he is sinful in boycotting. For this reason we say that he is advised because it is not upon the one being boycotted to do more than what you just mentioned except when the issue branches off into monetary rights, for example, where the one being boycotted is not giving back such rights [to their prospective owners].
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: The topic of boycotting another Muslim, is it allowed, O Shaikh?
Interjection: Regarding boycotting a Muslim, we spoke with the Ustaadh on the phone that day and then later delayed discussing the topic. Namely, the hadiths reported about boycotting a Muslim are well-known as is the great sin a Muslim commits by boycotting his Muslim brother. So we would like the Ustaadh [i.e., Shaikh al-Abaani] to speak about this topic, i.e., we are men …
Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that the topic of boycotting contains precision similar to the precision found in the topic of backbiting. The answer to these two matters is that just as it is not allowed for a Muslim to boycott another Muslim, in the same way it is not allowed for a Muslim to backbite another. And just as backbiting which is forbidden has a well-known exception in the Sharee’ah, in the same way boycotting has an exception in the Legislation.
So a Muslim boycotting another for other than a legislated reason is only permissible for three days, permissible for three days only, any more than that is haraam, due to the well-known hadith reported in the two Sahihs from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that he said, ‘It is not allowed for a Muslim to boycott his brother for more than three. They meet and so this one turns away from that one, and this one from that. And the best of them is the one who initiates giving the salutation to his brother.’
So in this hadith is a declaration of the forbiddance of boycotting along with an allowance to boycott for these three days or three nights. And in reality this is from the weakness of man which Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, created and described in His Saying, ‘And man was created weak.’ [Nisaa 4:28].
So our Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, was kind to him and so permitted him to vent some of his anger regarding his Muslim brother so it is permitted for him to boycott him for these three days and then the matter is over. If he increases upon that then the boycotting becomes forbidden according to the text of the hadith, at the start of which there occurred, ‘It is not allowed …’
As for what is exempted from that as we said … or as we alluded to the exemption from forbidden backbiting, [then as regards the exemption from boycotting] it is only when the impetus for it is to educate the one being boycotted and to try to turn him away from the opposition to the Sharee’ah that he may have fallen into.
So when a Muslim boycotts him for this purpose–and it, as is evident, is done with a reformative goal [in mind] for the person being boycotted–then it is permissible and if it is not done with this goal in mind then it is not permissible and the original ruling remains, i.e., that it is haraam after three days.
And amongst the people it frequently happens that a Muslim will boycott his brother over something material and not for a legislated purpose or wanting to educate the one being boycotted. Yet he will then falsely imagine that in boycotting his Muslim brother he is doing something good, whereas the reality is that he is not boycotting him because that person is perpetrating a matter or sin which he is continuing upon or sticking to, but [instead he is boycotting him] just to vent his own anger.
For this reason the issue of a Muslim boycotting his Muslim brother with the legislated boycotting is from the most precise affairs which it is obligatory upon the Muslim to be extremely careful from becoming entangled in and [as a result of such meddling] falling into it and thus–without realising or knowing–opposing the aforementioned hadith which forbids it.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
The second type of boycotting and abandoning is when a Muslim boycotts his Muslim brother to discipline, reprimand and educate him. This is permitted in Islaam–with this good intention, and not by way of cutting off and boycotting [for worldly reasons] which we just mentioned, but rather by way of disciplining him.
And this is not done except when the one being boycotted is openly disobeying Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, not caring about the people, not fearing Allaah nor being shy from [committing the sin in front of] Allaah’s servants–and he has an honest and good friend, who boycotts him when he sees that he has left the proper path, and is not firm and upright on the Straight Path.
The proof for this is the story of the three people who remained behind, the story of the battle of the Prophet عليه السلام in Tabook. Some of the Companions remained behind, from them Ka’b ibn Maalik. He didn’t leave for the battle with the Prophet عليه السلام, but remained behind with some other Companions [as I mentioned].
So when the Prophet عليه السلام returned from the battle of Tabook, these three [noble Companions] came as did other people who remained behind [but who] were from the hypocrites. So the hypocrites started making a myriad of false excuses and the Prophet عليه السلام was accepting their excuses and entrusting their affair to Allaah.
As for Ka’b ibn Maalik, then he spoke the truth to the Prophet عليه السلام and told him about the reality. He said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I cannot lie to you. Because I know that if I lie to you the revelation will make it clear and will uncover the lie. I became busy plowing, sowing, tending to my livestock ….’ and so on. So the Prophet عليه السلام ordered the Companions to boycott these three, from them being Ka’b ibn Maalik, may Allaah be pleased with him, and it continued for a long time.
Then Ka’b ibn Maalik’s wife was ordered to leave his house and to go to her family–and thus he was left alone for fifty days. The Prophet عليه السلام ordered the Companions not to speak to them. So one of these three would meet a man in the street and give him salaam but that other person would not return the greeting.
… this is in order to discipline these people who remained behind from the battle in the Way of Allaah with the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم.
Then forgiveness came down from Allaah to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم: Allaah had forgiven the three [who remained behind]. So Ka’b ibn Maalik came to the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم when one of his relatives had given him the good news that Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, had sent down news of His Forgiveness [in the Quraan]. So he came to the Prophet عليه السلام and Talhah stood up and received him and congratulated him on the fact that Allaah had forgiven him. A long story which contains great lessons, and it is found in Sahih Bukhari.
The point is that this boycotting is permissible and it comes under the principle of loving and hating for the Sake of Allaah.
But unfortunately this thing today is something of the past, It is very, very rare that you will find someone who boycotts a Muslim because he has deviated from the [correct] path. But he will [instead] boycott him over something material, [material things] some of which we pointed out previously.
The person who carries out the type of boycotting done for the Sake of Allaah is rewarded for it and is not sinful–and this is the type of breaking off that we are in need of nowadays.
As for cutting off over worldly matters then it is haraam and not permissible except for a period of three days only, if it goes on for longer than that then it is haraam and the matter is as he عليه السلام said in the previous hadith, ‘The best of the two is the one who greets his brother with salaam first.’ This is the answer to the question you asked, inshaa Allaah.
And making peace between people is from the best of actions, and due to its importance in Islaam the Prophet allowed lying to bring about peace between them [i.e.,the disputing parties].
This is something important, but a person must know the causes precisely so that he is able to bring about closeness/establish normal relations and reconcile between the opinions of the two disputants.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 95.
The video is of this post and the next one in the serious, number 4:
Al-Albaani: There are two types of boycotting in Islaam. Boycotting … a Muslim boycotting his Muslim brother is [regarded as being] of two types in the Legislation of Allaah.
The first: Is that he boycotts him due purely to a worldly matter, and it is not important whether this matter is something material or not [related to individual taste]–it is purely worldly.
This [type of] boycotting is forbidden in Islaam.
In situations such as it, there is an allowance of [not speaking for] three days only. So if it continues for more than three days, it is forbidden [haraam]. And that is his saying عليه الصلاة والسلام, ‘It is not allowed for a Muslim to boycott his brother for more than three. They meet and so this one turns away from that one, and that one from this. And the best of them is the one who initiates giving the salutation to his brother.’
[His saying] ‘More than three,’ i.e., more than three days, its meaning is that it is permissible for three days, an allowance from Allaah the Blessed and Most High, for His believing servants to vent their anger … by boycotting his brother Muslim for a day, two days, three–any more than that is forbidden [haraam]and not allowed. For this reason the Prophet عليه السلام described this boycotting by saying, ‘It is not allowed for a Muslim to boycott his brother for more than three days.’
[And he said], ‘They both meet …’ i.e., one is going, the other is coming, but instead of one giving salaam to the other and the other person replying, ‘…this one turns away from that one, and that one from this …’ i.e., he ignores his brother who just passed by him. This action is not permissible after three days.
‘…And the best of them is the one who initiates giving the salutation to his brother.’ This last sentence from the hadith gives us two things:
The first: that this forbidden boycotting will cease just by the mere giving of salaam. And this is a very beautiful policy legislated by the Sharee’ah.
Because it is difficult to bring together hearts which have boycotted and hate each other all at once. But the All-Wise Legislator [i.e, Allaah] presented us with an easy key, which is that when you have a dispute with your brother regarding a worldly matter and it continues for more than three days, then it is forbidden [haraam] for you [to continue boycotting], and it is upon you to break the boycott, and to stop the separation/exodus [from one another].
And it is not necessary for you to go to his house–that would be something good, something beautiful, and that you apologise to him, but this requires extremely strong eemaan–and this is rarely found among the people.
Thus the All-Wise Legislator made the way to ending this boycotting and separation easy: when you meet him in the street you give him salaam, [saying], ‘As-Salaamu alaikum,’ and thus the sin would be lifted. This is taken from his saying, ‘… And the best of them is the one who initiates giving the salutation to his brother.’
There is no doubt that the better of the two is the one who gives the salaam first. So this person who gave the salaam first has moved from the level of committing a forbidden act to the level of entering into the way of Islaam, through [showing] his brotherhood for his Muslim brother.
The other person without doubt is also someone who has turned away and abandoned his brother, this other person to whom the salaamwas given by the first … this [second] person who returns the salaam has committed a sin, and that [person who gave the salaam first] has been saved from the sin. The best of the two is the one who gives the salaam first.
So when the sin of abandoning and boycotting ceases to exist by giving the salaam, then this is usually the first step to meeting again, even if [that second meeting is] only through giving salaam, then maybe a handshake [will follow] which is regarded as one of the strongest reasons in attaining forgiveness from Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, since the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said, ‘No two Muslims meet and shake hands except that their sins fall away just like leaves fall off a tree in autumn.’
You know how in autumn a tree’s leaves turn yellow and fall away, and you hear a sound when they fall, the sins of two Muslims who meet and shake hands fall off just like that, their sins fall off just as leaves fall off a tree in autumn.
This is when the boycotting is related to worldly matters, whether material or abstract [but worldly nevertheless].
The second type of abandoning and boycotting is when …
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: Nowadays with the situation we’re in, there are many [different] outlooks and the groups have become numerous in terms of [their] creed and interpretation and so on.
So here is the question: nowadays a Muslim brother will never give salaam or return salaam, or visit, or follow the funeral procession of a person who opposes his group, even though he is a Muslim just like him.
It also happens that a person will enumerate [the mistakes] of another, [saying], ‘This person is such and such,’ and he [will go on to] say this and this and that. And [when] we tell him [that], ‘This is backbiting. And that person is a Muslim, and you are mentioning his shortcomings and enumerating his flaws.’ He says, ‘This is hatred for the Sake of Allaah and a clarification of what that person is upon.’
So we want to know how to differentiate between hating for the Sake of Allaah and clarifying mistakes without falling into backbiting which the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام warned us about, [when they asked him], ‘Even if he had [those characteristics] that we are talking about, O Messenger of Allaah?’ [He replied,] ‘If he has that which you are speaking about then you have backbitten him.’
So what is your opinion about this?
Al-Albaani: I do not know/believe that a Muslim would not give salaam to his brother Muslim [whilst] knowing that he is a Muslim. And this is boycotting which is not allowed Islamically, and the fact that the Muslims differ is not new, but rather old. What is obligatory is for there to be an exchange of mutual advice between the Muslims and that they have harmony and mutual love for the Sake of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.
So harbouring mutual enmity and boycotting is something prohibited in Islaam and loving and hating for the Sake of Allaah is sought after in Islaam. But maybe some people do not know how to implement [this properly]. And many times I am asked about a Muslim cutting off from his brother Muslim for some reason …
Questioner: For nothing more than some difference over a fiqh issue …
Al-Albaani: So I say: Boycotting today–even if fundamentally it is something legislated–yet today is not the time for implementing it. Because if you wanted to boycott every Muslim who you criticise on a certain issue, you will be left on your own, [a] harsh [person].
So it is not for us today to deal upon the way of hating for the Sake of Allaah and boycotting for the Sake of Allaah.
Rather, the time for that is when the Muslims become stronger, stronger [also] in how they appear to deal with/treat each other–it is then that an individual who deviates from the Straight Path is boycotted–in such boycotting is a cure for him and an education. As for now, then this is not the time for boycotting.
In places like Syria and Jordan, the youth who abandon and are negligent about the prayer are numerous, and the questions about this situation are numerous too … a person will ask, ‘I have a friend who used to pray with us. Then he deviated and abandoned the prayer. I advised, admonished and reminded him but he does not take heed nor respond to the advice. Shall I boycott him?’
So I say, ‘No. Do not boycott him.’ For if you do, you would have aided him in the deviance and misguidance he is upon. And if you boycott him, his friends, those who cause corruption in the land, will meet him and his deviance will become stronger. So it is upon you to follow up and attend to him while supervising him by admonishing him from time to time, and maybe Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, will guide him.
Here in Syria we have a proverb, they say that a man who had abandoned the prayer repented. He came to the mosque for the first time wanting to pray but found that it was closed, so he said, ‘You’re closed and [so] I have a day off [from praying]!’
This man who boycotts, when he does so, he says to the one he is boycotting, ‘I don’t want to ever see you, don’t accompany me and I won’t accompany you!’
For this reason, in the present age it is not from wisdom at all that we boycott the people because of their deviation. Whether this deviation is ideological, [connected to] creed [aqidah], or a behavioural deviation. It is upon us to have patience in accompanying these people and that we do not declare people to be deviated/misguided and that we do not declare them to be disbelievers.
Because this declaration of someone to be a deviant/misguided or this declaration that someone is a disbeliever does not help us at all. Rather, it is upon us to remind, as He, the Mighty and Majestic, said, “And remind for verily, the reminding profits the believers.” [Adh-Dhaariyaat 51:55]
Questioner: It should be noted that the person who accompanies/associates with such people be someone who is confident about himself, [confident about the fact] that he will not be affected by the views and mannerisms of the deviated individual.
Al-Albaani: By Allaah, you have spoken the truth about this … this is something very important, yes.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 80.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: Regarding an individual who boycotts [others] … if a person [the boycotted] came to him [the boycotter] and extended his hand to him [offering to shake hands] and tried to speak with him and the other person [the boycotter] refused, what should he do?
Al-Albaani: If that’s true then it is as though you’re feeding him hot ashes, i.e., it is as though you are throwing ash in his eyes: so you do what is obligatory upon you and don’t care.
Questioner: How many times should I repeat this?
Al-Albaani: Every time you do it, the reward will be multiplied for you, and the sin will become more severe upon him.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 25.
Questioner: What are the reasons which permit one to boycott another Muslim? And when it becomes permissible, what are the limits [of this] boycotting and cutting off as regards time?
Al-Albaani: Without doubt, the reasons which permit the boycotting of a Muslim are his persistence on committing forbidden acts which he knows are forbidden in Islaam. So when he persists in that, then boycotting and cutting off from him is permissible.
As for the second part of the question?
Questioner: Continuing from the first part of the same question, I say: is boycotting the people of innovation from the same category?
Al-Albaani: From the same category. This requires a clarification as I alluded to earlier.
Questioner: That he knows.
Al-Albaani: Yes.
Questioner: So what are the limits regarding [this] boycotting, cutting off and the time limit?
Al-Albaani: The limits are clear that if the persistent, disobedient Muslim sinner [faasiq], the criminal [faajir], continues upon his disobedience to his Lord, then the boycotting and cutting off persists until he repents to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic. And if he turns back we turn back to him, and return to interacting/communicating with him as our Lord, the Blessed and Most High, ordered us to. The length of time, therefore, is in the hands of the one who is being boycotted. It is within his hands to lengthen it and it is in his hands to shorten it.
Al-Huda wan Noor, 67.
The video:
Then he عليه السلام implemented this method with a Companion of his: it reached him that Abdullaah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas–the Companion, the son of a Companion, may Allaah be pleased with them both–it reached him that his father married him off to a girl from Quraish. He [i.e., Amr ibn al-Aas] visited her one day and asked her about her husband [i.e., his son].
So she said to him, ‘There is no problem with him except that he has not yet approached our bed. He stands to pray at night and fasts during the day,’ i.e., he got married but didn’t get married.
This was difficult upon Amr so he complained about his son to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So he عليه الصلاة والسلام said to him, ‘O Abdullaah! It has reached me that you spend the night in prayer and fast during the day and that you do not approach women [i.e., your wife].’ He said, ‘It is as such, O Messenger of Allaah!’
And this hadith is long and I will summarise it by saying that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم laid down a methodology for him which he could worship Allaah through and gather, as they say today, between the right of the body and the right of the nafs on the other hand, and the right of the soul, i.e., worship.
So he said, and he used to stand all night finishing the Quraan in it, and would always fast, he said regarding the recitation of the Quraan and this is at the end of the story which is long, he said, ‘Read the Quraan in three nights. For whoever reads it in less than three has not understood it.’
And concerning that which was connected to fasting he told him initially to fast three days every month, and a good deed is rewarded tenfold, so it would be as if you would have fasted the entire month, so Abdullaah would reply, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I am a youth and have strength. I can do more than that.’
And here you will notice the difference between that generation and our generation of today.
A youth in his prime, whose father married him off to a girl from Quraish, he turns away from her and [instead] stands to pray all night and fast during the day and … so on and so on. And when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم tells him to take it easy upon himself he replies to him saying, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I am a youth and have strength. I can do more than that.’
Today you have the opposite of that.
A youth will grow up upon obedience to Allaah and all around him you will find people repelling him, both those near to him and those distant: firstly the father, secondly, the mother, they will say to him, ‘You’re still a youth. You can worship later.’
Look at the difference between that time and this.
The point is that eventually he صلى الله عليه وسلم told him to fast a day and miss the next for such was the Fast of Dawud عليه السلام who would not flee from the enemy when he met them.
[But] Abdullaah replied, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I want better than that.’ He replied, ‘There is nothing better than that.’
So where is this pretentious ascetic Sufism, contradicting the Quran and Sunnah [by going further than what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم instructed his Companions with].
Thus, that which in Sufism truly agrees with the Quraan and the Sunnah, then remove this name [i.e., ‘Sufism,’ from it] and remain on the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.
And whatever opposes the Book and the Sunnah, then we throw it aside.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 632.
From ’Abdullah ibn Eesaa [who said]: Yahyaa al-Bukaa narrated to us from Ibn Umar that an Ethiopian was buried in Madeenah. So the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
دُفِنَ فِيْ الطِّيْنَةِ الَّتِي خُلِقَ مِنْهَا
“He was buried in the clay from which he was created.”
Reported by Abu Nu’aim in Akhbaar Asbahaan (2/304) and al-Khateeb in Al-Muwaddah (2/104).
Hasan
I [Al-Albaani] say: and this chain of narration is weak. Yahyaa al-Bukaa, who is Ibn Muslim al-Basree is weak. Like him is ’Abdullah ibn Eesaa, who is al-Khazzaaz al-Basree. And due to him alone al-Haithamee declared it to be defective (3/42) after he attributed it to al-Tabaraani in Al-Kabir.
And it has a supporting narration in the hadith of ’Abdullah ibn Ja’far Najeeh [who said] my father narrated to me [saying that]: Unais ibn Abu Yahyaa narrated to me from his father from Abu Sa’eed [who said]:
‘That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed by Al-Medinah and saw a group of people digging a grave. So he asked about it.
So they said, ‘An Ethiopian who came [here] and then died.’
So the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, ‘None has the right to be worshipped except Allaah. He was led from his land and his sky to the soil that he was created from.’
Reported by al-Bazzaar [no. 842, Kashful-Astaar], and [p. 91, Zawaa’id Ibn Hajar] and he said, ‘We do not know it from Abu Sa’eed except through this chain of narration. And Unais and his father were both righteous.’
I say: [one of the narrators] ’Abdullah ibn Ja’far is weak and I do not know his father. And it has another supporting narration from the hadith of Abud-Dardaa and his likes. Al-Haithami said, ‘At-Tabaraani reported it in Al-Awsat and Al-Ahwas ibn Hakeem is in it. Al-Ijlee declared him to be trustworthy and the majority declared it to be weak.’
So in my opinion, through all of its chains of narrations, the hadith is hasan. And Allaah knows best.’
As-Saheehah 1858.
And from that are two hadiths reported in Sahihs Bukhaari and Muslim. One of them is the hadith of Anas ibn Maalik, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, who said some people came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم but did not find him.
They asked his family about his worship, about his standing for prayer at night and during the day, and his relationship with women [i.e., his wives]. So his family spoke about what they knew and said that he عليه السلام would fast and eat, stand to pray at night and [also] sleep, and would marry women.
Anas said that when they heard that they regarded it as being little, i.e., they thought that the Prophet’s worship was little, because they pictured: the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله ليه وسلم sleeps at night? Surely, he must stay awake all night?! Likewise, he breaks his fast? Surely, he must fast all the time?! And he marries women?
And some people say that, ‘Knowledge was lost between the thighs of women.’ [i.e., due to concern about their intimate relationships with their wives.] How can the Prophet marry four, eight or more?
So they regarded his worship as being little–but then they turned to themselves and said, ‘This is the Messenger of Allaah. Allaah has forgiven him his past and future sins.’
The reality is that these statements emanate from people … who had newly embraced Islaam, because it is not possible that a person who understood his Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم sublime perfection which has no comparison, to say, ‘Why does the Prophet marry? Why does he sleep? Why does he eat? Allaah has forgiven him his sins …’ It is not befitting that such statements be said, but it happened as such.
The important thing is that they turned to themselves and said, ‘This is the Messenger of Allaah, Allaah has forgiven him his past and future sins. So we must toil and exhaust ourselves and worship Allaah until He forgives us.’
What was the way to achieve that, in their opinion?
One of them said, ‘As for me, I will fast and never break it.’ The other said, ‘As for me, I will stand in prayer and not sleep.’ And the third said, ‘I will never marry women.’
Then they left.
After some time the Prophet عليه السلام came and was told about them. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم gave a short sermon and said, ‘What is the matter with a people who say such and such? I fear Allaah more than you do, and I am the most obedient and dutiful among you to Him. As for me, then I fast and break the fast, I pray at night and sleep and I marry women. So whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me.’
Here is the point, ‘So whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me.’ So these righteous Sufis of old, I am not referring to Ash-Sha’raani’s group and his likes and [those who believe in] the Unity of Being. No. These people departed from the guidance of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and so came with old Buddhist, Indian ways which they inherited, and maybe they were foreigners [non-Arabs] who entered Islaam and did not understand it properly. Thus coming up with a way of punishing the soul under the assumption of purifying it. And here is your Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saying, ‘So whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me.’
As you must have heard by now, Abu Talhah Daawood ibn Ronald Burbank, passed away in an accident in Jeddah along with his wife today. It is truly distressing news, and one can only take comfort in the fact that they were on their way to perform Hajj, were in ihraam and that they died in a fire, one who does so being regarded as having died the death of a martyr, and one who dies in ihraam is raised in ihraam, saying the talbiyyah. His sons were able to leave the vehicle and then the explosion caught Daawood and his wife, and as far as I have heard, the janaazah will be held in Makkah tomorrow.
May Allaah have mercy on them both, forgive us and them, accept their righteous deeds and forgive them their shortcomings, and grant them both a place in Firdous, wa sallallaahu alaa Muhammad, aameen.
There is a paragraph or two written about the accident in this article.
Here’s is today’s post, continuing from the first post.
Shaikh al-Albaani said, “There is a type which is less [severe] than it, and it is the person who has deviated in his conduct from that which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was upon by burdening the soul with more than it is able to bear, in the name of refining it. And here we say: we, as Muslims, are not in any need whatsoever of a means which we–in order to nurture ourselves–take on through a way other than that of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
How so when in the hadith which Imaam Ahmad reports in his Musnad and others in their collections from Jaabir ibn Abdullaah al-Ansaari, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, [there occurs that he] said that, ‘One day the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saw a page in the hand of Umar ibn al-Khataab which he was reading. He said, ‘What is this, O Umar?’ He said, ‘This is a page a man from the Jews wrote for me.’ So he عليه الصلاة والسلام said, ‘O Son of al-Khattaab! Are you all puzzled/bewildered as the Jews and Christians were puzzled/bewildered?’ [Compiler’s note: it is as though the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is saying, ‘Are you puzzled/bewilderd about the Truth and not sure that you are upon it such that you have to return to the narrations of the Jews?’] By the One in Whose Hands is the soul of Muhammad! If Moses were alive he would have no alternative but to follow me.’’
So if Moses, the one whom Allaah spoke to and to whom He revealed the Torah directly, met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم it would not be possible for him to follow his Torah–rather he would have no choice but to follow our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Thus: how is it with us today that in the name of Sufi Islaam we nurture ourselves through a certain method of burdening [ourselves] under the impression that it is a [way of] refining the soul that orders evil, [doing so by] being severe/harsh against it.
They have very strange and odd stories. One of them, and this was in the time of the early generations whose righteousness has been testified to, [and was a time when] Sufism had started to raise its horns, … as for that which followed later in the time of ash-Sha’raani–and what will make you understand what ash-Sha’raani was, then narrate [the reality about him] and there is no harm in doing so … amongst them would be someone who would wear the coarsest of garments and then immerse himself in the Tigris River on a bitterly cold day. Then he would stand on the roof of his house, the cold wind whipping his face. [When asked], ‘What is this?’ He replied, ‘Refining the soul.’
This is not a refining of the soul, it is punishing it.
And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, in Truth–and we need to recognise the effect of this statement in our knowledge and Islamic [way of] life today–, ‘I have not left anything which will bring you closer to Allaah except that I have ordered you with it, and I have not left anything which will distance you from Allaah and bring you closer to the Fire except that I have forbidden you from it.’”
Dr. Abdul-Aziz as-Sadhaan said, ‘Shaikh Esaam Haadi said, ‘When our Shaikh, may Allaah have mercy on him, was admitted to hospital I visited him and asked how he was.
He praised Allaah and then said, ‘So far they have performed more than one endoscopic procedure on me but the cause of the illness is still not clear. And these operations hurt me a great deal. But I seek aid in overcoming them by remembering Allaah and thinking of what happened to our brothers in the way of Allaah, so I say, ‘What have we been through in comparison to what they went through?’
Then he cried, may Allaah have mercy on him.’’
Al-Imaam al-Albaani, Duroos, wa Mawaaqif, wa Ibar, of Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad Abdullaah as-Sadhaan, p. 90.
Dr. Abdul-Aziz as-Sadhaan said, ‘And an old person in Madinah told me that one time Shaikh Naasir al-Albaani was in a religious gathering with the students around him. At the beginning of the lesson one of the people present whispered something in his ear.
So the Shaikh excused himself from continuing the lesson and explained that Shaikh Ibn Baaz was about to arrive in Medinah and that he was going to give salaam to him or that he would receive him at the airport, and that was when Shaikh Ibn Baaz was at Medinah University.
But what I am not certain of is whether this occurred when Shaikh Naasir was a teacher at the university or when he was visiting Medinah and his presence there happened to coincide with the return of Shaikh Ibn Baaz from one of his journeys.’
Al-Imaam al-Albaani, Duroos, wa Mawaaqif, wa Ibar, of Abdul-Aziz ibn Muhammad Abdullaah as-Sadhaan, p. 257.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: The Sufis have recently come to our city, what advice can you give us?
Al-Albani: There is an old difference between the Muslims about the Sufis. The reality is that this name, Sufism [tasawwuf], and those who affiliate themselves to it, the Sufis, have many different meanings.
We know from our interaction with many of them that when the proof is established against them they say, ‘Sufism is nothing except clinging to the manners of Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, like abstaining from the world and desiring the Hereafter,’ this is what they say when the proof is established against them.
Thus we say that if this is what Sufism is in your opinion, then the difference between us and you regarding the word remains. Remove this word, ‘tasawwuf,’ because it has become a word having a great many meanings. One of which we mentioned just now, [i.e.,] sticking to noble manners and abstaining from the world and turning to the Hereafter. There is no need for us to use this name whose meaning is dubious when referring to that affair which [the Muslims] are united upon, i.e., sticking to the manners of Allaah’s Prophet عليه السلام and abstaining from the world and devoting oneself to the Hereafter.
But the reality is that [the word] tasawwuf [Sufism] has meanings far removed from this correct meaning [mentioned above]. And sometimes this distance [from the Truth] takes the one who is upon it out of the fold of Islaam, and sometimes it will place him among one of the misguided groups.
As for the first group [i.e., the people who have left the fold of Islaam], then it refers to those who believe in what the people of knowledge refer to as the creed of unity, or The Unity of Being/Existence [Wahdatul-Wujood] to be more precise. The Unity of Being, which is pure denial [of Allaah, ilhaad], means Nature, as expressed by naturalists (believers in naturalism), i.e. there is nothing but matter.
One of them says, ‘Everything that you see with your very eye is Allaah.’ So it’s nature, everything that you see with your eye is Allaah!
A second says:
And the dog and the pig are nothing but our God.
And Allaah is nothing but a monk in a church.
A third [Ibn Arabi, the Sufi] says:
God [Rabb] is man and man is God
How I wish to know who the one ordered (to perform worship) is
If you say man (is the one ordered), then that is a denial (of the presence of a God, based on the concept that God is man and man is God!)
And if you say God, how can He be obligated?!
A fourth:
When the Magians worshipped the fire
They worshipped nothing but the One, the Irresistible Subduer
[i.e., Al-Qahhaar, Allaah]
All of these are statements written down in their books through which they seek blessings. A belief [aqidah] such as this takes one outside the fold of Islaam, for it is a creed greater in disbelief than that of the Jews and Christians.
This reminds me of the saying of one their extremists, ‘The Jews and Christians only disbelieved because the Jews restricted Allaah to being in Uzair, and the Christians confined Him to being in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit–but as for us, we have generalized Him to be in all things.’
For this reason from their words of remembrance [dhikr]–and their dhikr is not from that of the Muslims, that which the Prophet mentioned [when he said], ‘The best form of remembrance is, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah,’–their remembrance is, ‘He, He …’
And they [also] say other phrases which, regretfully, some of the general masses with us in Syria have latched on to. You’ll find one of them sitting, wanting to remember Allaah, and so he will say, ‘There is nothing other than Him.’ What does, ‘There is nothing other than Him,’ mean? [This is incorrect because] there is a Creator and then there is the creation.
So this is the creed of The Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood], wording which is mentioned by some people, but they have not paid attention to the misguidance found therein.
Like these phrases totally is the saying of many of the common folk and their scholars, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists, Allaah is everywhere …’ [this is] the creed of The Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood], but along with that it is the creed [aqidah] of the Ash’aris and Maturidis of the end of time.
[They say], ‘Allaah is in all places,’ this [i.e., where we are sitting right now] is a place, is Allaah here? What is here? Zaid, Bakr, Amr, matter, a wall, air and so on–is Allaah here?!
‘The Most Gracious rose over the [Mighty] Throne [in a manner that suits His Majesty],’ [Taa Haa 20:5] This is the creed of the Salaf as-Saalih.
So this type of Sufism is the severest of the most severe forms of disbelief found on the face of the earth.
[Translator’s note: The following is another example of the extremists amongst them: ‘Sulaimaan bin Ali bin Abdullah al-Tilmisaani d. 690AH. He is highly revered among Sufis. The Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said about him, “He used to make all forbidden things lawful. To such an extent that some of the reliable people reported that he said:
‘The daughter, the mother, all (foreign) women–all of them are one and the same–there is nothing forbidden in that for us. It is only the ones who are veiled that say that that is haraam. So we in reply say to them: ‘It is haraam for you (not us).” (Majmoo’atur-Rasaa’il (1/184).
This Sufi Tilmisani once passed by a mangy, scabby dead dog on the street whilst he was talking to his companion about Wahdatul-Wujood (the Unity of Being/Existence). So his companion said to him, “Is this also the Essence (Dhaat) of Allaah?” pointing to the dead dog. So Al-Tilmisani replied:
“Yes. Everything is His Essence. There is nothing that is outside His Essence (Dhaat).”
High is Allaah above what the Sufis ascribe to Him!’
(Majmoo’atur-Rasaa’il (145) of Ibn Taymiyyah).]
So this discussion [that we’re having] is concerning refining such wording–so clarify what you mean.
From the goals that the Legislator laid down is a refinement of the terminology used, so when referring to Allaah’s Knowledge, instead of us saying, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists … Allaah is present everywhere,’ we should say, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge,’ because the first expression, i.e., ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ is connected to the aqidah of the extremist Sufis who say, ‘There is no He but He,’ so [according to them] there is no [distinction between] Creator or created, as one of them said:
When the Magians worshipped the fire
They worshipped nothing but the One, the Irresistible Subduer [i.e., Allaah]
Because [according to these people] Paradise, the Fire, the Creator, the creation, all of these things have no reality, and in summary [they say], ‘There is no He but He,’ they say, ‘Everything that you see with your very eye is Allaah!’
Thus it does not befit a Muslim to say a word which he will be compelled to explain afterwards. [So] make a clear statement–and there is nothing clearer than the Quraan, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’
As for you saying a sentence and then saying after it [having being compelled to explain it], ‘By Allaah! I mean such and such …’ then [in answer to this] the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said … and this was part of his disciplining us and teaching us manners, manners which if we followed we would have succeeded, [he said], ‘Do not say something which you have to make an excuse for before the people.’ [Compiler’s note: Reported in Sahih al-Jaami’ no., 742 with the wording, ‘And do not say something which you have to seek an excuse from …’]
And in another shorter narration there occurs, ‘Beware of that which you must seek an excuse from.’
So don’t say, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists, Allaah is present in all that exists,’ because you will face many objections and much criticism which you will have no way of answering.
It will be said to you, ‘The place which a Muslim is forced to go to two or three times a day, a place which he wishes he wouldn’t have to enter, is your Lord there too?’ Likewise, with [places such as] sewers etc., a Muslim does not say this.
So take back this statement of yours. Do not say it.
This is complicated, so what should we believe and what should we say? [What should we say] instead of, ‘Allaah is everywhere?’ Namely, when we speak about the One who is worshipped Himself, i.e., Allaah, [which is] the Name of Supreme Greatness [Ismul-Jalaalah], known amongst all Muslims, [what should we say?]
We know that the saying of some of them that ‘Allaah is everywhere,’ is a mistake and that what is meant is His Knowledge, so we say [to these people]: when referring to Divine Knowledge let your wording be correct, say, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’
But when we speak about Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, about the Divine Dhaat what should we say?
It has been reported from one of the Salaf, Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, who is from the major Shaikhs of the Imaam of the Sunnah, Imaam Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy upon him … he said in a statement which gathered and included [a summary of the topic at hand], he said, ‘Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence [bi dhaatihi]. Separate and distinct from His Creation. And He is with them in His Knowledge.’
The previous discussion [that], ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge,’ is an explanation of this last sentence, ‘And He is with them in His Knowledge.’
But at the beginning of this statement [of Ibn al-Mubaarak] he spoke about the Diving Dhaat, he said that Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence [Dhaat], he based this statement upon many aayahs from the noble Quraan, [such as], ‘The Most Gracious rose over the [Mighty] Throne [in a manner that suits His Majesty],’[Taa Haa 20:5] ‘To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allaah unless and until they are followed by good deeds),’ [Faatir 35:10]
And in the famous hadith, ‘Have mercy on those on earth and the One above the Heavens will have mercy on you,’ it is as though this hadith is an excerpt from His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, ‘Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allaah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allaah), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning?’ [Mulk 67:16-17] Imaam Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, the Shaikh of Imaam Ahmad, is expressing [the meaning of] these ayaahs [quoted above] and others [in that statement of his].
The Haafidh of Damascus, adh-Dhahabi, collected such statements in a book particular to this topic, which is printed and is called ‘The Ascendancy of the Most High, the Oft-Forgiving’ [Al-Uluww lil-Aliyyil-Ghaffaar]. In this book, he collected those aayahs which talk about this characteristic of the Divine Dhaat, i.e., the characteristic of being totally and absolutely above all creation.
The aayahs, hadiths, sayings of the Companions, narrations from the Salaf, amongst whom are the four Imaams, [which adh-Dhahabi collected in that book] all talk about what Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak gathered in that one sentence, ‘Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence, separate and distinct from His Creation …’ so he nullified the belief of indwelling [hulool], Allaah being the One in no need of any of His Creation.
But this ascendancy which it is not possible for the human intellect to grasp or imagine does not mean that any secret is hidden from Him, Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak said, ‘And He is with them in His Knowledge.’
So this brief sentence has collected [the meaning contained in] tens of aayahs and hadiths and sayings from the Salaf, so that the creed of the Muslim can be correct and far removed from that of ‘the Unity of Existence’ [Wahdatul-Wujood] and far removed from [believing in] ‘indwelling’ [hulool] which some of the misguided sects affirm.
Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence, separate and distinct from His Creation and He is with them in His Knowledge.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 69.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Thus, when a heedless Muslim says that Allaah is present in all that exists he will intend one of two things by it, and they are totally contradictory: the true existent, i.e., Allaah, and the possible existent, i.e., the creation. If he intends this meaning, then he has fallen into a creed other than wahdatul-wujood, i.e., [he has fallen into] hulool [divine indwelling].
You know, for example, that some Islamic groups believe that Allaah enters/dwells within certain esteemed–according to them–personalities.
You will see these Alawites or Ismailis for example, maybe you have read a lot about the Ismailis whose leader is the Aga Khan, every year he would be weighed in gold in America.
So they believe that the one worshipped transmigrates into him, indwells in him; this is called hulool. It is less than wahdatul-wujood which we just spoke about.
Wahdatul-Wujood is referring to something which cannot be separated one from the other, in hulool Allaah is separate and distinct from His creation as the scholars say but, according to them [i.e., the extremist Sufis] obviously, He has indwelled and transmigrated into a person.
So when this person who says that Allaah is present in all that exists means that there are two existents, then that means that one of them entered the other, instead of entering a person He entered the entire universe. This, of course, is disbelief and absolutely no Muslim doubts that it is.
And if by [the statement], ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ he intends the first meaning, i.e., there is no Creator or created, there is only one thing, then this disbelief is much more severe.
You see these Muslims who fast and pray along with us and we pray behind them etc., if you were to say to one of them, ‘‘[Your statement that] Allaah is present in all that exists,’ does it mean one of these two meanings?! Does it mean the total unity of existence that the Sufis refer to, i.e., that there is no Creator or created, or does it refer to indwelling [hulool], i.e., that Allaah created the creation then entered it?’–I do not think that a Muslim can believe such a creed as either of these.
So, why do you use this statement? Why don’t you emulate the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said, ‘None of you should say, ‘My soul has become evil [khabuthat],’ but he should say, ‘My soul has become remorseless [laqisat].’ The meaning of [the Arabic word], ‘khabuthat’ is the same as ‘laqisat,’ ‘laqisat’ means ‘khabuthat,’ but the Prophet wanted us to talk about ourselves with kind words even though the meaning is the same.
So what is wrong with us? When we talk about our Lord the Blessed and Most High it is not allowed for us to say a word which can give an impression of disbelief or misguidance.
In reality, when such topics are discussed and most of the people present take heed [of the point being made], as though some of them had hitherto been in heedlessness, some of them will say, ‘We don’t mean that Allaah the Blessed and Most High has entered all of His Creation Himself,’ and we didn’t say that they did intend that, for if they had–and this is another topic–it would be disbelief, but the point being discussed now is about refining the terminology [being used].
So, [we ask these people], ‘What do you mean by, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists?’ [They reply, saying,] ‘His Knowledge.’
How beautiful!
Without doubt, Allaah has encompassed all things in His Knowledge, He has encompassed all things, the Blessed and Most High–but the wording used is incorrect.
You want to talk about Allaah’s Knowledge, then say, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’ [Talaaq 65:12], a text from the Noble Quraan [itself], ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’ [Say], ‘Not a secret in the earth or the heavens is hidden from Him.’ [But] don’t say that Allaah, the One who is worshipped and possesses every characteristic of perfection and Who is free from every shortcoming–don’t say that, ‘Allaah is everywhere,’ [or] ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ instead say, ‘He surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’
Al-Albani: All of you must have heard of a group called the Sufis, and of a [type of] knowledge, or Sufi spiritual path [sulook] known as tasawwuf.
The people who ascribe themselves to this tasawwuf are of differing ranks, some of them have overstepped all limits and left Islaam in the name of Islamic Sufism, left Islaam just as a strand of hair is pulled out of dough [i.e., totally]. Why?
Because their interpretation of aayahs from the noble Quraan [is so incorrect that it] and philosophy and apostasy are one and the same. In the eyes of the scholars of the Muslims they are known as the people who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood [lit: the unity of existence], the ones who say the same thing as the atheists, but their wording differs from that of the atheists, they say, ‘There is nothing except one.’ So [according to them] the universe that we see is Allaah. For this reason they are called people who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood.
The Muslims say that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah [Laa ilaaha illallaah], in this sentence there is an affirmation and a negation. There is a negation of whoever might interpret falsely (the presence of another god), then the affirmation that Allaah is the one and only God, the Most High.
As for those Sufis, then they say, ‘There is no He but He.’ They then paraphrase it and make it a form of remembrance which they repeat for themselves, [saying], ‘He, He …’ This is a dangerous deviation as you can see, i.e., a denial of the true existence of Allaah, and following on from that, a denial of the legislation, no Islaam … no Judaism, no Christianity–because there is no [differentiation between the] slave and the Lord, a Lord who obligates others to worship Him and a slave who is obligated to worship. For this reason one of them said:
God [Rabb] is man and man is God
How I wish to know who the one ordered (to perform worship) is
If you say man (is the one ordered), then that is a denial (of the presence of a God, based on the concept that God is man and man is God!)
And if you say God, how can He be obligated?!
[According to them] there is no He but He. So in the end: He is He!
There are words that emanate from Muslims who bear witness [by saying] Laa ilaaha illallaah Muhammad Rasulullaah, these people are not atheists but they will sometimes utter words which lead them to that false aqidah. This is something very dangerous and hardly any but a few are safe from it.
Now in our normal gatherings [you will hear] one of them say whether on a particular occasion or not, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ [this statement of theirs] equals, ‘There is no He but He.’
You will hear [this statement] many times, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ and after close scrutiny of its meaning and purport and what it entails one can see that it equates to the saying of the Sufis–the extremists amongst them obviously–who openly declare that, ‘There is no He but He.’
There are Two Existents Not One
Because if we were to ponder over the declaration of truth which is when a believer truly says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped except Allaah,’ [then we will find] that it establishes two existences.
‘None has the right to be worshiped except Allaah,’ negates the false deities which are worshipped other than Allaah, and they are present [as is mentioned, for example,] in the Quraan in the statement of Noah to his people, “And they have said, ‘You shall not leave your gods, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwa’, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya’uq, nor Nasr.’” [Nooh 71:23] These were idols worshipped instead of Allaah, for that reason when Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent Noah عليه السلام to his people he ordered them to worship Allaah alone.
So, ‘None has the right to be worshiped …’ is a negation of the false deities which are present. ‘… except Allaah,’ is an affirmation of the existence of the Truth, i.e., Allaah the Blessed and Most High.
So there are two existences. It is not possible for a Muslim who, firstly, understands his Islaam and who, secondly, believes that Allaah created him, not to affirm two [separate] existents.
The scholars of tawheed refer to the First Existent, i.e., that of the Creator the Most High, He exists in His Essence, i.e., is eternal, having no beginning. So His existence is termed as being the necessarily existent [Waajibul-Wujood].
As for the other existent then it is [called] the contingent or possible existent which is mankind and all creation. Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said to it, ‘Be!’ And it was. So it was preceded by nonexistence in contrast to the existence of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic–for He is the First having no beginning, as you all know.
The Albaani Site 