Some claim that it is possible to abandon the Sunnah, or some of it, for the sake of legitimate public interest, as Muhammad al-Ghazali did. What is your opinion on this?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : O Shaykh, regarding the issue of legitimate public interests, and assessing public interests in the matter of abandoning the Sunnah, some people cite the hadith of Aisha.
The Shaykh : In the matter of what?
The questioner : Abandoning the Sunnah, such as the hair bun and other things. They cite the hadith of Aisha: They say: We abandon all the Sunnah because these Sunnah practices drive people away. Do we accept this statement from them?
The Shaykh : I do not know if you asked this question before or if someone else did.
The questioner : I asked you by telephone, O Shaykh, and you told me: No, we do not abandon the Sunnah. I had it recorded on a tape, and I asked you this afternoon and you said something different. Did you change your mind or what?
The Shaykh : What is the difference between the two statements?
The questioner : The first statement: You say: No, we do not abandon the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : And I still say that. And the last statement, where you said you changed your mind or not, what is it?
The questioner : You say: If they are pious scholars, they should decide on this matter.
The Shaykh : Does this overturn the previous statement or clarify it?
The questioner : By Allah, I do not know. I asked just now to make it clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : If it is true that you do not know, then I do not know what to say to you! Know this, hehehe, this does not contradict that, O my brother, because as long as the hadith is in our hands, but who delayed the repair of the Ka'bah and its return to the foundations of Ibrahim (peace be upon him)? Was it one of those people who say that it is in the interest of the da'wah to abandon the Sunnah, or was it the one who brought the Sunnah?
The questioner : The one who brought the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : Good. Bring someone like him who is well-versed in his knowledge. When he says: I see the public interest in abandoning one of the Sunnah practices, then we say:
"If Hudham speaks, believe her, *** For the truth is what Hudham says".
So there is no difference between the two statements at all, because you are asking by telephone and I am answering you. I give you the rule: Do not abandon the Sunnah. Just because a person claims—and today people exploit this statement—that it is for the benefit of the da'wah to abandon the Sunnah. This Ghazali mocks those who hold fast to the Sunnah, and he wants the Muslim, if he goes to Europe, to become Europeanized, and if he goes to America, to become Americanized, while he is a Muslim. How is this possible?
He says: For the interest of the da'wah. And he does not see the interest of the da'wah in, for example, wearing a robe like a sack and a turban like a tower. He is the one whom the mufti of his country in his time, Muhammad 'Abduh, criticized. He used to make analogies with the scholars of al-Azhar, saying their turbans are like towers and their robes are like sacks. So he adorns himself with this attire. If he goes to the lands of disbelief, I do not know, by Allah, does he remain holding fast to this attire, which is not Islamic attire, or does he become Europeanized and Americanized? I do not know what to say. But his methodology is denying holding fast to these customs for the sake of the interest of the da'wah.
If the interest of the da'wah is a man who assesses it properly and puts things in their proper places with wisdom, we accept it from him. But you see how he fights the Sunnah and fights the authentic hadiths merely because of his opinion and his crude intellect that has not been purified or cleansed by studying the Sunnah and establishing faith in the unseen in his heart, which is the first obligation of the believer, as the Lord of the Worlds said in His Noble Book:[Al-Baqarah 2:2] Who are they?
[Al-Baqarah 2:3], and the scholars of tafsir say: Faith in the unseen is "the firm belief in everything that is hidden from your mind", meaning: that your mind has not perceived. This is faith in the unseen.
This man has no faith in the unseen. Whenever a hadith comes to him that requires faith, he overturns it completely. This is not reasonable, this is not acceptable, and this is proof that the scholars of hadith have no fiqh, they have no knowledge, and, by the will of Allah, he has all the fiqh.
No, he has no fiqh from the Book, nor from the Sunnah, nor from what the Imams held. So sometimes you see him as a rigid, literalist Hanbali, who permits musical instruments and songs, even if it is Umm Kulthum. And sometimes he takes offense at the Salafis who take from the hadiths, and says: These people do not respect the Imams or appreciate them properly. And this is a description of him, not of the others. Because if the matter is between appreciating the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and not appreciating some scholars, there is no doubt that appreciating and honoring the Messenger is more appropriate than those. And the opposite is not correct. As for him, when he stands before his personal desire, he does not honor the Messenger, meaning in his hadiths, nor does he honor the scholars, meaning in their rulings. The four madhahib agree on the prohibition of musical instruments, and he does not give them any weight. Why?
Because Ibn Hazm went to the permissibility of them. But why? And what is his argument with the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari? He knows nothing about it at all, because it has to do with hadith and hadith scholars. And he is a jurist and was content with what he had, and he has neither fiqh nor hadith.
The questioner : O Shaykh, regarding the issue of legitimate public interests, and assessing public interests in the matter of abandoning the Sunnah, some people cite the hadith of Aisha.
The Shaykh : In the matter of what?
The questioner : Abandoning the Sunnah, such as the hair bun and other things. They cite the hadith of Aisha:
Were it not that your people are recent in their disbelief
لولا أن قومك حديثوا عهد بكفرThe Shaykh : I do not know if you asked this question before or if someone else did.
The questioner : I asked you by telephone, O Shaykh, and you told me: No, we do not abandon the Sunnah. I had it recorded on a tape, and I asked you this afternoon and you said something different. Did you change your mind or what?
The Shaykh : What is the difference between the two statements?
The questioner : The first statement: You say: No, we do not abandon the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : And I still say that. And the last statement, where you said you changed your mind or not, what is it?
The questioner : You say: If they are pious scholars, they should decide on this matter.
The Shaykh : Does this overturn the previous statement or clarify it?
The questioner : By Allah, I do not know. I asked just now to make it clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : If it is true that you do not know, then I do not know what to say to you! Know this, hehehe, this does not contradict that, O my brother, because as long as the hadith is in our hands, but who delayed the repair of the Ka'bah and its return to the foundations of Ibrahim (peace be upon him)? Was it one of those people who say that it is in the interest of the da'wah to abandon the Sunnah, or was it the one who brought the Sunnah?
The questioner : The one who brought the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : Good. Bring someone like him who is well-versed in his knowledge. When he says: I see the public interest in abandoning one of the Sunnah practices, then we say:
"If Hudham speaks, believe her, *** For the truth is what Hudham says".
So there is no difference between the two statements at all, because you are asking by telephone and I am answering you. I give you the rule: Do not abandon the Sunnah. Just because a person claims—and today people exploit this statement—that it is for the benefit of the da'wah to abandon the Sunnah. This Ghazali mocks those who hold fast to the Sunnah, and he wants the Muslim, if he goes to Europe, to become Europeanized, and if he goes to America, to become Americanized, while he is a Muslim. How is this possible?
He says: For the interest of the da'wah. And he does not see the interest of the da'wah in, for example, wearing a robe like a sack and a turban like a tower. He is the one whom the mufti of his country in his time, Muhammad 'Abduh, criticized. He used to make analogies with the scholars of al-Azhar, saying their turbans are like towers and their robes are like sacks. So he adorns himself with this attire. If he goes to the lands of disbelief, I do not know, by Allah, does he remain holding fast to this attire, which is not Islamic attire, or does he become Europeanized and Americanized? I do not know what to say. But his methodology is denying holding fast to these customs for the sake of the interest of the da'wah.
If the interest of the da'wah is a man who assesses it properly and puts things in their proper places with wisdom, we accept it from him. But you see how he fights the Sunnah and fights the authentic hadiths merely because of his opinion and his crude intellect that has not been purified or cleansed by studying the Sunnah and establishing faith in the unseen in his heart, which is the first obligation of the believer, as the Lord of the Worlds said in His Noble Book:
This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -
ألم * ذلك الكتاب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقينWho believe in the unseen
الذين يؤمنون بالغيبThis man has no faith in the unseen. Whenever a hadith comes to him that requires faith, he overturns it completely. This is not reasonable, this is not acceptable, and this is proof that the scholars of hadith have no fiqh, they have no knowledge, and, by the will of Allah, he has all the fiqh.
No, he has no fiqh from the Book, nor from the Sunnah, nor from what the Imams held. So sometimes you see him as a rigid, literalist Hanbali, who permits musical instruments and songs, even if it is Umm Kulthum. And sometimes he takes offense at the Salafis who take from the hadiths, and says: These people do not respect the Imams or appreciate them properly. And this is a description of him, not of the others. Because if the matter is between appreciating the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and not appreciating some scholars, there is no doubt that appreciating and honoring the Messenger is more appropriate than those. And the opposite is not correct. As for him, when he stands before his personal desire, he does not honor the Messenger, meaning in his hadiths, nor does he honor the scholars, meaning in their rulings. The four madhahib agree on the prohibition of musical instruments, and he does not give them any weight. Why?
Because Ibn Hazm went to the permissibility of them. But why? And what is his argument with the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari? He knows nothing about it at all, because it has to do with hadith and hadith scholars. And he is a jurist and was content with what he had, and he has neither fiqh nor hadith.