The questioner’s discussion with the Shaykh regarding standing for a guest out of respect, which is a matter of custom, and the original ruling for custom is permissibility.

The questioner : I am not in a position to debate, Shaykh, but I want to get your opinion.

The Shaykh : That is what I am asking for.

The questioner : Yes, so either you correct me or... I looked at the texts in general and found that the prohibition of standing is for standing in exaltation, like a horse standing before its kings?

The Shaykh : Do you allow me?

The questioner: Go ahead.

The Shaykh : Even if... I did not mention the prohibition; I said: What is your opinion of this standing that people do today? You started with the prohibition. If I asked you: What is your opinion of the prohibition? You would answer me with what you started with. But I say: What is your opinion of this standing? Is it, for example, an Islamic etiquette or not an Islamic etiquette? And so we proceed in the topic until we ask: Is it forbidden or disliked? Then we might look into that aspect. But originally, most people respect their scholars by standing; is this respect a prescribed matter in your view or not?

The questioner : The whole matter is in the realm of customs; Your Eminence knows that the original ruling for customs is absolute permissibility. Many of these actions fall into the realm of customs. I mean, if the custom is restricted by prohibiting legal texts or otherwise, then that has another realm. What made us ask is the existence of legal texts that prohibited standing; otherwise, it falls within customs whose original ruling is permissibility?

The Shaykh : Customs, as is not hidden—may Allah will it—from everyone, are those by which drawing near to Allah is not intended... What you pointed to, I do not think has a relation to the question; because I am asking about something people do as etiquette, respect, and reverence for scholars; so it cannot be imagined to be a pure custom to be attached to pure customs. Therefore, I hope the research is very limited so we do not go off on a tangent with the speech, I mean.

The questioner : But we reverse our perception in our society here; because this custom is deeply rooted in fact, such that this custom... texts of religious innovation; this is what led me to describe it as a custom.

The Shaykh : No, but you measured it by... the section of worship, you attached it to the section of customs.

The questioner : I did not measure it by the section of worship, Shaykh; I said: It is a custom, and the original ruling for customs is permissibility?

The Shaykh : You measured it by the section opposite to the section of worship, yes, the section of customs. So that means this issue is attached to customs only, but its treatment does not differ if it is a pure custom.

The questioner : No, we treat it with legal texts, but you asked not to delve into this from the beginning.

The Shaykh: Correct.

The questioner : Okay; there is another aspect; which is the point of view.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : So my point of view is that it is of the kind of customs; this is what made me stand for you like this, and also—likewise—the society among us is accustomed to this custom; such that if you accepted, if a person greeted you and you were sitting, that would hurt his feelings, and he would consider this a defect in him.

The Shaykh : And it is a custom, and a defect results from it.

The questioner : And a defect results from it in our custom.

The Shaykh : Okay; do you say it is a pure custom?

The questioner : That is what I know, that it is a custom. Do you have something—Shaykh—inform us?

The Shaykh : The custom—may Allah bless you—you know it is equal on both sides; whoever wishes does it and whoever wishes leaves it; and no defect results from behind that.

The questioner : This is if no legal text is mentioned regarding it, and if it is mentioned.

The Shaykh : No, no, not yet, we have not reached that. I say: The custom that we distinguish between it and worship is that which is all good; like a custom; we are talking about the custom, it is that if it is done, no one says: Why did you do it? And if it is left, no one says: Why did you leave it? Whereas you are now describing this thing with a negative or positive, it is said that this is a defect, and so on; this cannot be considered a pure custom.

The questioner : ... Shaykh, if no legal texts are mentioned in this issue, what can we call it if it is like this?

The Shaykh : The answer in what preceded: We call it a custom if it is not accompanied by disapproval of the one who did it or left it. The issue—may Allah bless you—is not a pure custom at all.

The questioner : If you meet, start with the elders.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : I say: If you meet, start with the elders.

The Shaykh : Like that...? [Everyone laughs].

The questioner : The truth is, I am the one who made me say this to you.

Another questioner : Do not anticipate the discussion...

The Shaykh : In any case; the important thing is that my opinion is clear to you that it is not good to attach this to customs; because customs are those whose nature is that the one who does it is like the one who leaves it.

The questioner : Okay; by what do you attach it?

The Shaykh : We attach it from the rulings above custom, above the permissible.

The questioner : Okay; I said: If no legal text is mentioned, we look into it, I mean, from the aspect of exaltation?

The Shaykh : I answered you—may Allah bless you; if it is a custom where the doer and the leaver are equal; then it is a custom. But if contempt results from behind it—for example—the guest for the sitter; because he did not respect the custom, this is not a pure custom; right or no?

The questioner : I do not have any background, it has not settled in my mind that it is a custom.

Another questioner : It is as if you distinguished—Shaykh—between the issue of respecting the scholar and the issue of people standing for each other in general, you made standing for the scholar and respecting and revering him.

The Shaykh : I did not distinguish, because that; namely: the standing of the general public for each other, if the same harm that results from it regarding the scholar results from it, then the ruling is one, but it may be severe or mild, but it does not remain a pure custom.

The questioner : Now—Shaykh—a similar issue in this; for example, among us the custom has run for a specific clothing, which is the thobe and the taqiyah, and if I walked in the street without this ghutrah, people would despise me and doubt my mind; I mean, they consider it from the things that destroy manliness, so is this like a custom and disapproval results from it?

The Shaykh : What results from it did you say?

The questioner : Disapproval from before.

The Shaykh : Disapproval, yes, is this disapproval in its place legally?

The questioner : If we come to the legal research, it is another thing, but.

The Shaykh : It cannot be separated—may Allah bless you—it cannot be separated, because I have been saying since the beginning that this reality must be treated; not a reality we restrict ourselves to that nothing results from it. This reality either results in legal disapproval from one of the two sides, or it does not result; if nothing results, then it is the custom, so we repeat that the custom is like the permissible things; if you wish, do it, and if you wish, leave it. But if behind one of the two things, the one who left the custom was disapproved of, or the one who did the custom was disapproved of, it does not remain a pure custom. The reality imposes on us to say: It is not a pure custom; until we say if you wish, do it, and if you wish, leave it; because we will say: If you wish, do it, and if you wish, leave it, without disapproval from one of the doers or leavers; this is the pure custom.

The questioner : I knew customs that disapproval results from them, but not legal disapproval, rather customary disapproval.

The Shaykh : Okay; hold this word, now: -- may Allah have mercy on you -- ; does not this standing used today fall under the aspect of reverence and knowing the scholar, or does it not fall?

The questioner : It does not fall, but I mean with the legal restriction.

The Shaykh : No, ... , does it fall, does it remain a pure custom?

The questioner : This is if it is for a scholar, but for the general people it remains a custom.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, there is no need—may Allah bless you—to say: If. We are treating a reality, and I have answered with complete clarity that this reality falls under reverence or under knowing the right of the scholar; so we left the pure custom and entered a custom in which reverence for the elder and respect or veneration for the scholar is accompanied. So this custom is the one in which the research should be conducted, and we do not go far from the reality.

The questioner : It is not restricted to the scholar only, it is a general social problem.

The Shaykh : I did not restrict it to the scholar; we said it in two out of three points: We did not restrict it to the scholar; however, further details will follow later, but let us take the first step. There is no doubt that this custom—may Allah reward you—and you have probably not forgotten the hadith of Anas ibn Malik: "No one was more beloved to us than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and they did not stand up for him because of what they knew of his dislike of that." The least that can be said about such standing is that the Messenger disliked it, and we should dislike it. Here the detail comes in: if he disliked it out of humility, we are even more in need 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 sin, then we are even more so. And if he disliked it by religious law, the matter is even clearer. Then why am I going on about the obligation of addressing reality as reality, rather than abstracting an image from this reality to say that this image contradicts reality? We know that many people, including scholars and people of virtue, strongly disapprove, making it clear that the one who does not stand for the scholar is considered to be lacking in Islamic etiquette. Is this not the reality? Therefore, I say: it is not permissible to separate this reality or this custom from the actual custom that is accompanied by harms. 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 reward you—of the scholars, who are supposed to be the heirs of the prophets? Is it not also incumbent upon them to 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? It is better to remain silent about this issue first, without blame, and then to try to say that this is a pure custom, and it is not a pure custom!
And 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—it contains wonderful meanings, and there is exaggeration in what he believed. The biography states that Ibn Battah went out one day with a friend of his who was a poet, and they passed by a scholar in the market. It seems that this scholar disagreed with Ibn Battah on the issue of standing. And Ibn Battah, as will come in the poetry, if we believe that he accurately expresses Ibn Battah's opinion, because he acknowledged this poetry in what was reported about him, it seems that this scholar, who was sitting in his shop, knew that Ibn Battah disliked this standing intensely, but he believed it was the right of the scholar to be stood for out of reverence and respect. So when Ibn Battah passed by that scholar, he stood up for him and apologized to him with two verses of poetry, saying:
Do not blame me for standing, for my right *** When you appear, is that I do not tire of standing
You are the most noble of creation to me *** And it is the truth that I honor the noble ones
So Ibn Battah said to his poet friend: Answer for me. And this means that the poet knew Ibn Battah's opinion, so he improvised on the spot and said:
"If you were not, I would not neglect *** To honor you and show great respect
Then you have the merit in precedence and knowledge, *** And we do not want from you any restraint.
So pardon me now from this standing of yours first *** For I will repay you with standing for standing
And I hate that very much *** For in it is flattery and sin
Do not burden your brother with receiving... *** ... ... ... the forbidden
Well, the exaggeration is: "What he considers permissible is the forbidden," but the beautiful thing is his saying:
And if our souls are sound *** We are content with not tiring the bodies.
We are all confident in the affection of our brother *** So why are we agitated and for what?
So may Allah reward you; is this not what represents the first, brightest era? The Companions with the Messenger of Allah did not have this affectation. Then the phenomenon of affectation, which is at least disliked in the Shari'ah, clearly entered. One of the virtuous entered, you stood up; before you sat down, another virtuous person entered, you stood up; then you sat down, and so on. However many people entered, what increased? The standing. Is this how one of you imagines the Prophetic era (peace and blessings be upon him)? No, meaning, if the Messenger (peace be upon him) entered, for example, they stood up for him, and they did not stand up for him. If Abu Bakr entered, they stood up for him; if 'Umar ibn al-Khattab entered, they stood up. Is this reasonable? In the first era, there was absolutely nothing of this affectation. So if we say that we should always call to what the righteous Salaf were upon.
"And all good is in following those who came before *** And all evil is in following those who came after"
There is no doubt that as long as we have taken the image of the first society that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was with his Companions, we should try by the best and most beautiful ways to renew—peace and mercy of Allah be upon you—to renew that society, and let us not enter into details: forbidden, disliked by prohibition, disliked by recommendation; the general principle is sufficient for us: the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
So this is my viewpoint in this context. As for a man who enters and likes for people to stand for him, that is another matter and is known. But on this occasion, I mention a narration with a very precise derivation concerning this issue; and it is that Mu'awiyah entered one day in his council during his governorship, and in the council were 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar and 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr—excuse me—'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and 'Abdullah ibn 'Amir. So one of them stood up, and I think it was Ibn 'Amir, and the other did not stand, and he was Ibn al-Zubayr. So Mu'awiyah turned to rebuke the one who stood for him, who was Ibn 'Amir, arguing against him with the hadith: How is this? Mu'awiyah was the one who entered, and he was the one who rebuked the standing for him. So I understand from here that he is drawing attention, as if his unspoken words say: O Ibn 'Amir, you and others, if you stand for the one who enters, you may perhaps stamp him with a stamp of loving standing, and with time, he will actually come to love standing, and he will fall into this severe warning. What do you see in what Mu'awiyah did, or more precisely, in what Mu'awiyah used as evidence? Where he rebuked the one who stood for him. As for what happened in some other stories =
-- Another questioner : ... The Shaykh : Now—
= As happened in some other stories: One of the kings of the Banu 'Abbas entered, and the people stood up, and one of them did not stand. So al-Rabi', who was the king's gatekeeper or minister—oh Allah, in the name of Allah—drew his attention, and it seemed he was resentful of the one who did not stand. The caliph said to him: Why did you not stand? He said: I honored you, I honored you by not standing! He said to him: How? He said to him: So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: .

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... If you stand, I will not shake hands with you, and if you sit, I will shake hands with you; is there anything wrong with shaking hands with the one who is standing while sitting?

The questioner : ... The custom that ... there is nothing wrong with it.

The Shaykh : Okay; so I say now: ... the ones sitting ... and there is some awkwardness in shaking hands with them one by one, "Peace be upon you," "Peace be upon you," and the session ended with that. But if there are three or four present, he gives one greeting and does not give each person a greeting as some do; so this became the slogan of the Ba'ath Party!!

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : This is a religious innovation without doubt, and I warned about it in some of my trips.