Discussion: The permissibility of standing for people of virtue in gatherings.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : I, O Shaykh, am not in a position to discuss this, but I would like to offer my opinion.
The Shaykh : This is what I am saying.
The questioner : Yes, so either you correct it, or
The Shaykh : or we benefit from it.
The questioner : I looked at the texts in general and found that the prohibition of standing is specifically for standing out of reverence, like a horse standing for its kings.
The Shaykh : Do you allow me?
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh : So that we do not stray. I did not mention the prohibition; I asked what your opinion is on this standing that people do today. You started with the prohibition. If I had asked you what your opinion is on the prohibition, you would have answered with what you started with. But I am asking what your opinion is on this standing.
Is it, for example, an Islamic etiquette or not? And so we proceed through the topic until we ask whether it is forbidden or disliked. Then, perhaps, one can look into this aspect. But the original point is that most people respect their scholars by standing. Is this respect, in your view, a prescribed matter or not?
The questioner : The matter falls within the realm of customs. Your eminence knows that the original ruling for customs is absolute permissibility. Many of these actions fall within the realm of customs. But if a custom is restricted by prohibited Shari'ah texts or otherwise, it has a different status. What made us question this is the existence of Shari'ah texts that prohibited standing. Otherwise, it falls within customs, whose original ruling is permissibility.
The Shaykh : Do you permit?
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh : As is clear to everyone, if Allah wills, customs are those not intended to draw near to Allah. I do not think this has any relation to the question, because I am asking about something people do as etiquette, respect, and reverence for scholars. It cannot be imagined to be a pure custom to be classified with pure customs. Therefore, I hope the discussion remains very limited so that we do not stray in our speech.
The questioner : It is, if Allah wills, limited. But we are reversing our perception in our society here, because this custom is deeply rooted, truly as rooted as the mountains. This is what led me to describe it as a custom.
The Shaykh : No, but you measured it against the opposite of the category of worship; you classified it with the category of customs.
The questioner : I did not measure it against the category of worship, O Shaykh, because I said it is a custom, and the original ruling for customs is permissibility.
The Shaykh : No, no, excuse me, I measured it against the category opposite to the category of worship, namely the category of customs.
The questioner : Customs.
The Shaykh : ... So, this is an issue that falls under customs. But as for its treatment, if it is a pure custom,
The questioner : we do not treat it with Shari'ah texts. But you requested not to delve into this from the start.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : When it is delved into from another side, which is the perspective.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : My perspective is that it is of the category of customs. This is what makes me stand for you like this. Also, our society is accustomed to this custom, to the point that if you were sitting and someone greeted you, it would hurt their feelings and they would consider it a defect in themselves.
The Shaykh : And it is a custom.
The questioner : And it is a custom.
The Shaykh : And a defect results from it.
The questioner : And a defect results from it in their custom.
The Shaykh : So, would it be a pure custom?
The questioner : This is what I know: it is a custom. I mean, do you have something, O Shaykh? Please inform us.
The Shaykh : A custom, may Allah bless you, is one where both sides are equal: whoever wants to do it does it, and whoever wants to leave it leaves it, and no defect results from it.
The questioner : This is if no Shari'ah text exists regarding it. But if a Shari'ah text exists,
The Shaykh : No, we have not reached that yet. I say that the custom, which we distinguish from worship, is one that, in reality, like a custom now—I am speaking about the custom—is one where if you do it, no one says "why did you do it," and if you leave it, no one says "why did you leave it." Whereas you are now describing this thing with a negative or positive connotation, saying it is a defect, and so on. This cannot be considered a pure custom.
The questioner : Well, O Shaykh, if no Shari'ah text exists in this issue, what can we call it if it is like this?
The Shaykh : The answer, as mentioned before, is that we call it a custom if it is not accompanied by blame for whoever does it or leaves it. The issue, may Allah bless you, is that it is not a pure custom at all.
The student: If you are given a drink, start with the elders.
The Shaykh : how
The student: I say, if you are given a drink, start with the elders.
The Shaykh : Like that, I mean.
The questioner : The truth is, what made me say this to you
Another questioner: Do not bring the discussion into the discussion.
The Shaykh : In any case, the important thing is that I have clarified to you my opinion that it is not appropriate to classify this with customs, because customs are those whose nature is such that doing them is like leaving them.
The questioner : Well, what do you classify it with, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : It is classified with rulings above the level of custom, above the level of permissibility.
The questioner : Well, I said if no Shari'ah text exists, what do we examine it under? I mean, from the perspective of reverence.
The Shaykh : I answered you, may Allah bless you: if it is a custom where the doer and the leaver are equal, it is a custom. But if, for example, contempt results for the one sitting because he did not respect the scholar, this will not be a pure custom, right or wrong?
The questioner : By Allah, I have no background on this; what is established in my mind is that it is a custom.
Another questioner: O Shaykh, we ask a question. It seems you distinguished, O Shaykh, between the issue of respecting a scholar and the issue of people standing for each other in general. You made standing for a scholar, respecting him, and honoring him...
The Shaykh : I did not distinguish, because that standing of the general public for each other, if it results in the same harm that results in the case of the scholar, the ruling is one. But it may be more severe or less, but I do not expect it to be a pure custom.
The Shaykh : This is what I am saying.
The questioner : Yes, so either you correct it, or
The Shaykh : or we benefit from it.
The questioner : I looked at the texts in general and found that the prohibition of standing is specifically for standing out of reverence, like a horse standing for its kings.
The Shaykh : Do you allow me?
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh : So that we do not stray. I did not mention the prohibition; I asked what your opinion is on this standing that people do today. You started with the prohibition. If I had asked you what your opinion is on the prohibition, you would have answered with what you started with. But I am asking what your opinion is on this standing.
Is it, for example, an Islamic etiquette or not? And so we proceed through the topic until we ask whether it is forbidden or disliked. Then, perhaps, one can look into this aspect. But the original point is that most people respect their scholars by standing. Is this respect, in your view, a prescribed matter or not?
The questioner : The matter falls within the realm of customs. Your eminence knows that the original ruling for customs is absolute permissibility. Many of these actions fall within the realm of customs. But if a custom is restricted by prohibited Shari'ah texts or otherwise, it has a different status. What made us question this is the existence of Shari'ah texts that prohibited standing. Otherwise, it falls within customs, whose original ruling is permissibility.
The Shaykh : Do you permit?
The questioner : Please go ahead.
The Shaykh : As is clear to everyone, if Allah wills, customs are those not intended to draw near to Allah. I do not think this has any relation to the question, because I am asking about something people do as etiquette, respect, and reverence for scholars. It cannot be imagined to be a pure custom to be classified with pure customs. Therefore, I hope the discussion remains very limited so that we do not stray in our speech.
The questioner : It is, if Allah wills, limited. But we are reversing our perception in our society here, because this custom is deeply rooted, truly as rooted as the mountains. This is what led me to describe it as a custom.
The Shaykh : No, but you measured it against the opposite of the category of worship; you classified it with the category of customs.
The questioner : I did not measure it against the category of worship, O Shaykh, because I said it is a custom, and the original ruling for customs is permissibility.
The Shaykh : No, no, excuse me, I measured it against the category opposite to the category of worship, namely the category of customs.
The questioner : Customs.
The Shaykh : ... So, this is an issue that falls under customs. But as for its treatment, if it is a pure custom,
The questioner : we do not treat it with Shari'ah texts. But you requested not to delve into this from the start.
The Shaykh : Correct.
The questioner : When it is delved into from another side, which is the perspective.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : My perspective is that it is of the category of customs. This is what makes me stand for you like this. Also, our society is accustomed to this custom, to the point that if you were sitting and someone greeted you, it would hurt their feelings and they would consider it a defect in themselves.
The Shaykh : And it is a custom.
The questioner : And it is a custom.
The Shaykh : And a defect results from it.
The questioner : And a defect results from it in their custom.
The Shaykh : So, would it be a pure custom?
The questioner : This is what I know: it is a custom. I mean, do you have something, O Shaykh? Please inform us.
The Shaykh : A custom, may Allah bless you, is one where both sides are equal: whoever wants to do it does it, and whoever wants to leave it leaves it, and no defect results from it.
The questioner : This is if no Shari'ah text exists regarding it. But if a Shari'ah text exists,
The Shaykh : No, we have not reached that yet. I say that the custom, which we distinguish from worship, is one that, in reality, like a custom now—I am speaking about the custom—is one where if you do it, no one says "why did you do it," and if you leave it, no one says "why did you leave it." Whereas you are now describing this thing with a negative or positive connotation, saying it is a defect, and so on. This cannot be considered a pure custom.
The questioner : Well, O Shaykh, if no Shari'ah text exists in this issue, what can we call it if it is like this?
The Shaykh : The answer, as mentioned before, is that we call it a custom if it is not accompanied by blame for whoever does it or leaves it. The issue, may Allah bless you, is that it is not a pure custom at all.
The student: If you are given a drink, start with the elders.
The Shaykh : how
The student: I say, if you are given a drink, start with the elders.
The Shaykh : Like that, I mean.
The questioner : The truth is, what made me say this to you
Another questioner: Do not bring the discussion into the discussion.
The Shaykh : In any case, the important thing is that I have clarified to you my opinion that it is not appropriate to classify this with customs, because customs are those whose nature is such that doing them is like leaving them.
The questioner : Well, what do you classify it with, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : It is classified with rulings above the level of custom, above the level of permissibility.
The questioner : Well, I said if no Shari'ah text exists, what do we examine it under? I mean, from the perspective of reverence.
The Shaykh : I answered you, may Allah bless you: if it is a custom where the doer and the leaver are equal, it is a custom. But if, for example, contempt results for the one sitting because he did not respect the scholar, this will not be a pure custom, right or wrong?
The questioner : By Allah, I have no background on this; what is established in my mind is that it is a custom.
Another questioner: O Shaykh, we ask a question. It seems you distinguished, O Shaykh, between the issue of respecting a scholar and the issue of people standing for each other in general. You made standing for a scholar, respecting him, and honoring him...
The Shaykh : I did not distinguish, because that standing of the general public for each other, if it results in the same harm that results in the case of the scholar, the ruling is one. But it may be more severe or less, but I do not expect it to be a pure custom.