Mentioning the evidence for the non-prescription of standing for the elder and the person of virtue.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : There is no doubt that this custom, may Allah bless you, and you have perhaps not forgotten the hadith of Anas ibn Malik
The least that can be said about standing like this is that the Messenger disliked it, and we should dislike it. Here comes the detail: he disliked it out of humility. We are more deserving of disliking it out of humility, because if he disliked the thing for fear that arrogance might enter his heart, and he is protected from error, then we are all the more so. And if he disliked it by religious law, the matter is clearer and clearer.
And then, why am I going on about the obligation of addressing reality? This is reality, not a picture we try to take from this reality, fearing that the picture might contradict the reality. We know from many people, among them scholars and people of virtue, who deny with the strongest denial, as a matter of religion, that the one who does not stand for a scholar is considered to be violating Islamic etiquette. Is this not the reality?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Therefore, I say that we should not separate this reality or this custom from the actual custom that is accompanied by harms... And the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). As long as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) disliked this standing from his Companions, what is expected, may Allah bless you, of the scholars, who are supposed to be the heirs of the prophets, is not it also that they spread this Sunnah that was between the Messenger (peace be upon him), the master of mankind, and the best of mankind after the prophets and messengers? Is this not what is required of the scholars?
So, silence on this issue first, and no blame, then trying to say that this is a pure custom, and it is not a pure custom. I am very pleased, on this occasion, with some verses I read in some books of literature concerning the biography of Abu 'Abdullah ibn Battah, may Allah reward you with good, but they contain very wonderful meanings, and there is exaggeration in them, I believe.
The Shaykh : The biography says that Ibn Battah went out one day with a poet companion of his, and they passed in the market by a scholar. It seems that this scholar disagreed with Ibn Battah on the issue of standing. Ibn Battah, as will come in the poetry, if we believe that he expresses Ibn Battah's opinion accurately, because he approved this poetry in what was narrated about him, seems that this scholar who was sitting in his shop knew that Ibn Battah disliked this standing with the strongest dislike, but he sees it as the right of the scholar to be stood for out of honor and respect. So when Ibn Battah passed by that scholar, he stood for him and apologized to him with two verses of poetry, saying:
"Do not blame me for standing, for my right *** When it appears is that there is no hope of standing
You are the most honorable of creation to me, *** and it is the truth that I honor the honorable."
So Ibn Battah said to his poet companion, answer for me. And the meaning of this is that the poet knew Ibn Battah's opinion, so he improvised on the spot and said:
"If you are one who does not lack me, you tend *** To my right and show great respect
You have the merit in precedence and knowledge *** And we do not want from you reserve.
Then pardon me now from this standing up of yours, first *** for I will reward you with standing up for standing up
And I am very averse to that *** For it contains flattery and sins
Do not burden your brother to receive you *** With what by which the forbidden is made lawful"
Well, the exaggeration is in "with what by which the forbidden is made lawful," but the beautiful part is his saying:
"And if our hearts are sound from us *** We are content with not tiring our bodies
We are all confident in the love of his brother *** so why our agitation and for what?"
So, may Allah bless you, is this not what represents the first, brightest era, the Companion with the Messenger? They did not have this affectation, and the apparent affectation, which is at least disliked in the Shari'ah, is very clear. One of the tribes entered, you stood, you had not yet sat, another group entered, you stood, then you sat, and so on. However many entered, the more standing there was. Does anyone imagine the Prophetic era (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) meant that when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) entered, for example, they stood for him, and they did not stand for him? When Abu Bakr entered, they stood for him? When 'Umar ibn al-Khattab entered, they stood for him? It is not possible. This thing in the first era was not of this affectation at all.
So, if we say that we always call to what the righteous Salaf were upon,
"And all good is in following those who came before *** And all evil is in innovating those who came after"
There is no doubt that as long as we have taken a picture of the first society that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions were upon, we should try with the softest and best ways to renew, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah, to renew that society. And let us not get into the details of forbidden, disliked, forbidden by prohibition, disliked by recommendation. The general principle is enough for us: the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). This is my view on this standing. As for a man who enters and wants people to stand for him, that is another matter, and it is well known.
No one was more beloved to them than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and they did not stand up for him because they knew his dislike of that.
ما كان شخص أحب إليهم من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وكانوا لا يقومون له لما يعلمون من كراهيته لذلكThe least that can be said about standing like this is that the Messenger disliked it, and we should dislike it. Here comes the detail: he disliked it out of humility. We are more deserving of disliking it out of humility, because if he disliked the thing for fear that arrogance might enter his heart, and he is protected from error, then we are all the more so. And if he disliked it by religious law, the matter is clearer and clearer.
And then, why am I going on about the obligation of addressing reality? This is reality, not a picture we try to take from this reality, fearing that the picture might contradict the reality. We know from many people, among them scholars and people of virtue, who deny with the strongest denial, as a matter of religion, that the one who does not stand for a scholar is considered to be violating Islamic etiquette. Is this not the reality?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Therefore, I say that we should not separate this reality or this custom from the actual custom that is accompanied by harms... And the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). As long as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) disliked this standing from his Companions, what is expected, may Allah bless you, of the scholars, who are supposed to be the heirs of the prophets, is not it also that they spread this Sunnah that was between the Messenger (peace be upon him), the master of mankind, and the best of mankind after the prophets and messengers? Is this not what is required of the scholars?
So, silence on this issue first, and no blame, then trying to say that this is a pure custom, and it is not a pure custom. I am very pleased, on this occasion, with some verses I read in some books of literature concerning the biography of Abu 'Abdullah ibn Battah, may Allah reward you with good, but they contain very wonderful meanings, and there is exaggeration in them, I believe.
The Shaykh : The biography says that Ibn Battah went out one day with a poet companion of his, and they passed in the market by a scholar. It seems that this scholar disagreed with Ibn Battah on the issue of standing. Ibn Battah, as will come in the poetry, if we believe that he expresses Ibn Battah's opinion accurately, because he approved this poetry in what was narrated about him, seems that this scholar who was sitting in his shop knew that Ibn Battah disliked this standing with the strongest dislike, but he sees it as the right of the scholar to be stood for out of honor and respect. So when Ibn Battah passed by that scholar, he stood for him and apologized to him with two verses of poetry, saying:
"Do not blame me for standing, for my right *** When it appears is that there is no hope of standing
You are the most honorable of creation to me, *** and it is the truth that I honor the honorable."
So Ibn Battah said to his poet companion, answer for me. And the meaning of this is that the poet knew Ibn Battah's opinion, so he improvised on the spot and said:
"If you are one who does not lack me, you tend *** To my right and show great respect
You have the merit in precedence and knowledge *** And we do not want from you reserve.
Then pardon me now from this standing up of yours, first *** for I will reward you with standing up for standing up
And I am very averse to that *** For it contains flattery and sins
Do not burden your brother to receive you *** With what by which the forbidden is made lawful"
Well, the exaggeration is in "with what by which the forbidden is made lawful," but the beautiful part is his saying:
"And if our hearts are sound from us *** We are content with not tiring our bodies
We are all confident in the love of his brother *** so why our agitation and for what?"
So, may Allah bless you, is this not what represents the first, brightest era, the Companion with the Messenger? They did not have this affectation, and the apparent affectation, which is at least disliked in the Shari'ah, is very clear. One of the tribes entered, you stood, you had not yet sat, another group entered, you stood, then you sat, and so on. However many entered, the more standing there was. Does anyone imagine the Prophetic era (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) meant that when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) entered, for example, they stood for him, and they did not stand for him? When Abu Bakr entered, they stood for him? When 'Umar ibn al-Khattab entered, they stood for him? It is not possible. This thing in the first era was not of this affectation at all.
So, if we say that we always call to what the righteous Salaf were upon,
"And all good is in following those who came before *** And all evil is in innovating those who came after"
There is no doubt that as long as we have taken a picture of the first society that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions were upon, we should try with the softest and best ways to renew, and peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah, to renew that society. And let us not get into the details of forbidden, disliked, forbidden by prohibition, disliked by recommendation. The general principle is enough for us: the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). This is my view on this standing. As for a man who enters and wants people to stand for him, that is another matter, and it is well known.