Explanation of the Hadith: (I do not fear poverty for you, but I fear the love of worldly things for you; and I do not fear error for you, but I fear deliberate sin for you).

The Shaykh : In this lesson tonight, we studied the sixty-second hadith, which is his saying:
And Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: It was narrated by Ahmad, and its narrators are relied upon in the Sahih, and by Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih," and by al-Hakim, who said: It is authentic according to the conditions of Muslim.
The first part of this hadith is a fragment of the previous hadith in the last lesson, from the hadith of 'Amr ibn 'Awf al-Ansari. In it, the Messenger (peace be upon him) said, after the money of the jizyah came to him from Bahrain, and his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) addressed him, wanting to receive their right in that money that came to them from Bahrain; so he said to them (peace be upon him): This part of this hadith is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: , and it seems that this hadith, with its two parts and its two sections, is derived from the Noble Qur'an.
As for the first section: ; that is His saying (Blessed and Exalted is He): . This is an address to all of humanity, as if Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is indicating that the nature of people who were not raised upon Islam and the morals of Islam, and were not influenced by the commands of Islam and the awareness of Islam, is that they love the multiplication of wealth and children, and that this is their habit and occupation until they visit the graves; which is an allusion to death; until... This is an address to the general public, so no one escapes this address except the Muslim who was raised with the upbringing of Islam and disciplined with the etiquettes of Islam.
The Messenger (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him) fears for his Companions primarily, and for those who come after them secondarily, that they will love the multiplication of wealth, and he does not fear poverty for them; because Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) informed his Prophet (peace be upon him) of many of the unseen matters, including that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) will open up for him the kingdoms of Kisra and Caesar, and that has come to pass as is known in the authentic hadiths and reports of the biography; therefore he said to them: , as if he is saying to them: Do not be like the general people whom the love of worldly things distracts until they visit the graves; until they die; so their wealth does not benefit them at that time, as has passed with us in many hadiths that when a Muslim or a person dies, three things follow him: his family, his wealth, and his deeds, and his family and his wealth return from him, and his deeds remain with him.
Therefore, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) in this hadith and the previous one and many like them, fears for his Ummah wealth; the richness, the fortune, and does not fear poverty for them, and this is the reality of the first Ummah, the first generation of Muslims, and our reality today; for we hardly see a poor person complaining of hunger, complaining of nakedness, it is not possible for this one who finds the poorest of people, you see him displaying the best of clothes, and he may also eat from types of food and the most delicious of them, therefore it is not befitting for the Muslim to fear poverty; rather he fears the opposite; he fears wealth, because wealth and money, as we mentioned before, is a distraction and a trial, as he (peace be upon him) said: .
So this first part of the hadith is, as we said, derived from the noble verse: .
The second part: and it is his saying (peace be upon him): ; this is also quoted from the Noble Qur'an in more than one verse in the Qur'an, among which is His saying (the Exalted): , so this is the text of the Qur'an from which this hadith was quoted, so the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: , and this is from the kindness of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and His ease for His servants, as He (the Exalted) said: ; that is because error is something from which no person hardly escapes; and therefore our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) does not hold His servants accountable for what happens from them of error, no matter how great and huge this error is, and on the contrary of that; a person is held accountable if he deliberately commits a sin, even if it is small, so the scope of accountability is only for the deliberate, and there is no accountability if error happens from a person without his intention.
Therefore, these texts from the Qur'an and from the Hadith and other than that which there is no room to mention now, strongly draw our attention to the fact that it is not possible in any way for a person to be compelled in his actions that issue from him by his choice; that is: what the general people say today, and some of their specialists may speak of, in their saying: that the person is compelled and not given choice, and they claim that the person is compelled and not given choice.
So this speech in its generality is false, and it is only, as we explained to you, and I do not want to lengthen it, but only a quick indication:
The actions of a person are of two types: a type that issues from him without his intention; so here it is correct to say: that the person is compelled.
And the other type issues from him with intention and deliberation and direction and choice; this is not correct to say: that he is compelled; meaning against his will, but he is in that given choice, and the reality that every rational person touches testifies that his actions do not exceed these two types; either he is compelled in them, having no intention in them and no choice, or he is given choice, having pure choice in them.
And an example of the first: height and shortness and color and life... and so on, so this is not owned by the person, and I do not say: the good deed and the bad deed, you write a sentence in which there is good, you write a sentence in which there is evil, you speak a word in which there is good, you speak a word in which there is evil, all of this returns to the second type in which he is given choice.
This division is the opinion of the majority of the rational people, I do not specify the Muslims, this division is the opinion of the rational people except those who deviated in their intellect and in their understanding, those who say: that the person is compelled, and their poet expressed this wrong opinion when he described the relationship of the person with Allah such that He bound him and shackled him, so he said:
He threw him into the sea with his hands bound, then said to him: *** Beware, beware of getting wet in the water.
Thus they describe the person in that he has no will and no choice with Allah (Mighty and Majestic) - far be it from Allah!; Allah says in many verses in which He mentions the action, and builds upon it entering Paradise: , , .
I say: that this distinction that the actions of a person are of two types, this is what the intellect rules, in addition to the Shari'ah, but here is a detail that these people must be aware of; especially those who do not have knowledge of Islamic creed, it does not mean that the person is given choice in some of his actions and not given choice in others, that in the first type in which he is given choice; that that is not decreed for him and not his portion, and not inherited from the will of Allah and His will; no, all of that is decreed for him and written for him, and it is by the will of Allah (Mighty and Majestic): .
So everything is recorded, and every matter is inscribed, recorded: , this combining between the belief in the divine decree, and the belief in the choice of the person in the type in which he has choice; this combining is from the faith; that you believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers and in the Last Day and in the divine decree, its good and its evil.
So people go astray to the right or to the left, those who judge by their intellects only, we see them - as we said - with the general people that the person is given choice, but it is necessary to detail the previous, then they say that the matter... has no relation to the will of Allah or to His will or to His decree or to His divine decree in any of that!!
These people say a terrible saying that contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, it contradicts the consensus of the Companions, who, when one of them heard about a man who judges by his intellect like this that the person is given choice, and the matter is new and he starts it now, and there was no prior divine decree and destiny, these are the Mu'tazilah in the past and their like in the present; who, by their reliance on their intellects, deny the divine decree.
These people are opposed by others who, out of their belief in divine decree, denied the human being any choice. When that happens, we return to the original point of the hadith: in their view, there is no difference between intentional action and error, as long as the human being is compelled and forced in everything that issues from him. Thus, this is a denial of dozens—if not hundreds—of texts from the Book and the Sunnah that distinguish between intentional action and error: .
Do we say: “Our Lord, do not hold us accountable if we err”?! There are texts that distinguish between intention—as you have heard—and error. If the human being has no control and no will, then this is a negligence in speech, and far be it from the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)! And also from the speech of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), for he does not speak from desire. Far be it from their speech that there be in it any idle talk or error. So from whom does the error come? From those who say a word that equates the human being’s intentional action with his error. These are the Jabriyyah, and those are the Mu’tazilah. Those [the Mu’tazilah] judged by their intellect that the human being is a chooser, but they denied the texts of the Book and the Sunnah that explicitly state that everything is by divine decree. And these Jabriyyah, out of belief in what is written, denied the reality of the human being’s choice, which is the foundation of the human being’s obligation. The foundation of the human being’s obligation is this choice, which some describe—not to belittle it—by saying it is “voluntary compulsion.” He is a chooser... either by choice or by compulsion, either intentionally or by error. Therefore, this distinction is part of the perfection of faith in Islam, whereas equating intention and error is a denial of this choice by which Allah (Mighty and Majestic) linked the obligation of His servants.
And the belief that the human being acts without the will and desire of Allah preceding it is a deviation, and it is a separation—as we said—from the belief in divine decree, which is a pillar of faith.
If we understand this distinction, which is both religious and natural, between error and intention, we can understand this divine facilitation that the Messenger (peace be upon him) expressed in this second part of the hadith when he said: .
So, it is upon us to take from this hadith... not to intentionally oppose Islam, whether by opposing the Book of Allah or the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) intentionally. As for a person who commits an opposition without intent, Allah does not hold him accountable.
And from here, I consider it necessary to point this out. First: to clarify... and second: to refute many who speak with falsehood and lies about the innocent, saying that we misguide and declare Muslims in general to be disbelievers. This is a statement from which we disavow ourselves and its speaker, and from the one who also attributes it to us falsely and with slander. We distinguish... so the intentional ones who oppose the Book and the Sunnah are the ones who deserve accountability. These are a group who have been imbued in their hearts with the love of this world, the love of appearances, positions, and chairs, and the like. The truth appears to them, yet they oppose the people of this truth, and they oppose the truth itself while ignoring it. As for the masses of people, they have no knowledge of this truth. Therefore, those who fight the truth... they are the ones who are held accountable, whereas the masses are not held accountable because they did not intentionally err.
Take a simple example: a person of the Hanafi school who does not raise his hands when bowing... a very simple matter; this person is not held accountable because he thinks that this school is specific in this issue. But what about the oneThe Shaykh : who, if he were to read al-Bukhari and Muslim, would be far from... the Sunnah; he must have read from the abridgments of the books of the Sunnah, such as, for example, *Bulugh al-Maram min Ahadith al-Ahkam* by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. He must have read, for example, *Mishkat al-Masabih* by al-Khatib al-Tabrizi. He must have read *Al-Muntakha min Akhbar al-Mustafa* by Ibn Taymiyyah the grandfather. He must have read something from these books and found authentic hadiths in al-Bukhari and Muslim that the Messenger used to raise his hands when bowing and when rising from it. And he finds in one hadith in *Sahih al-Bukhari* that one of the Companions, in a gathering of about ten of them, described the prayer of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). After he began with the takbir of ihram, then bowed and raised his hands, and raised his head while keeping his hands raised, and then completed the prayer, they all said to him: “You have spoken the truth; this was the prayer of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).”
These people must have read this hadith and turned away from it; why? Because it is contrary to the school! The masses do not know this reality. The masses, specifically the general Muslims, do not know this hadith, but their specialists—at least some of them—knew this hadith. Why did they leave it? Out of fanaticism for the school, whereas it is obligatory for them to follow the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in general, and in prayer in particular: , . He did not say: “Pray as Abu Hanifa prayed,” nor as Malik prayed, nor... and you will find that these people have reversed the verse completely: . You will find one of them has been sincere in following his imam.
You will find, for example, some Hanafis who, when they stand to pray, lean on one of their legs. They do not stand as Allah created them, but they lean on their leg. Why do you do this? He says: “This is how Abu Hanifa used to pray.” If you say to him: “How did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) pray?” he does not know. So this following has been transferred from following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to following an imam. When we say this, they interpret and distort it with an interpretation other than the truth; they say: “This is an attack on the imam.” Glory be to Allah! If we direct people to follow the Master of Imams, the Master of Prophets and Messengers, and to be sincere to him in following, is this an attack on those imams who were... it is a hadith that one should be sincere in following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)! But some things they may have erred in, and some other things may have been attributed to them, such as this alternating between one leg and the other; this is not transmitted from Abu Hanifa in an established book.
The point is that they do this action because Abu Hanifa—they claim!—did it. Fine, the Messenger raised his hands; why don’t you do it? It is contrary to the school of Abu Hanifa! So we have made the branch the root and the root the branch. The root is following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and we have made it a branch, meaning we have made the branch the root, reversing the realities!! So the accountability comes from them knowing the truth and then deviating from it.
And the masses of Muslims do not know the truth in what people have differed on, but some of their specialists know it. These are of two types: some know the truth and speak out with it, and these must bear the result of speaking out with the truth, that it will be said about them and spoken about them. This is if they are struck, if they are imprisoned, if they are slandered against; it is the Sunnah of Allah in His creation. The other type knows and then argues with falsehood. So we hope that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) will make us among those who do not intentionally oppose the Book and the Sunnah, but rather, if we err, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has promised us that He will not hold us accountable for what we erred in, but for what our hearts intended.
So the goal of this hadith, its first part: .
And here are weak hadiths, numbered: . These are all weak.
The hadith after it is authentic, but before I begin with it, it is necessary to remind you of a principle of hadith science; and this is for two reasons:
The first reason: the obscurity of the science of hadith among the specialists of people, let alone the general public.
The other reason is that this phrase—the other reason is actually the first reason in reality—when the author says, “It was narrated by Ahmad, and its narrators are those relied upon in the Sahih,” this phrase is misunderstood due to people’s neglect of studying the science of hadith. They understand from this phrase that the hadith is authentic, but that is not what it means. Similarly, when the author or hadith scholar says of a hadith, “Its men are the men of the Sahih,” or “Its narrators are those relied upon in the Sahih,” or “Its men are trustworthy,” none of this means that the chain of this hadith is authentic, nor does it even mean that its chain is good. Therefore, if you come across this phrase in one of the books you are reading, no one should understand from it that the hadith is being authenticated or graded as good. So what does it mean? It means that one of the conditions for the authenticity of a hadith has been met in the chain of this hadith, namely the trustworthiness, integrity, precision, and memorization of the narrators. This is one of the conditions of an authentic hadith, because the agreed-upon definition is: what is narrated by an upright, precise person. This is the trustworthy narrator. Upright means: not an open sinner. Precise means: not having a poor memory. This is the trustworthy narrator, and this is the one who is relied upon in the Sahih, meaning in al-Bukhari and Muslim. But this is not the only definition of an authentic hadith. It is not simply: what is narrated by an upright, precise person from his like, no, that is not enough. It must be: from his like, from his like, to the end, and it must not be anomalous and it must not be defective.
And it must not be defective: the word “defective” encompasses dozens of defects. One of us says, “Its narrators are the narrators of the Sahih,” but he does not say, “And it has no defect.” If he had said, “It has no defect,” then the hadith would have been authentic at that point. If they had wanted to convey that, it would have sufficed for him to say, “It has no defect,” and he would have said, “Its chain is authentic.” Then the hadith would be authentic.
Why?—a question will come—why do these authors, like al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami and others, why do they not say, “Its chain is authentic,” so that they would spare us the misunderstanding in which the masses of people today fall?
The answer is: The science of hadith has not been neglected or discarded except because of its difficulty. Here are the scholars of hadith, like al-Mundhiri and his like, who do not say, except in rare cases, of the chain of a hadith: “Its chain is authentic” or “Its chain is good.” Why? Because if a person says of a hadith, “Its chain is authentic” or “Its chain is good,” he must study it for an hour, or hours, and perhaps ten days, just for the chain of one hadith. If a person devoted himself to such verification, he would spend his entire life and still be unable to verify anything less than half of the hadiths circulating today in books and between... and the like. Because this requires studying the chain from the first to the last, in terms of its continuity, its freedom from disconnection, its freedom from concealment of defects, and finally its freedom from hidden defects. This is the most precise of the sciences of hadith, and it is called the hidden discontinuity. Therefore, the scholars of hadith—except for the rare ones, and among these rare ones is al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar—do not say, “Its chain is authentic,” unless it is apparent to them immediately without effort.
And if it appears to them that the matter requires research, and that is something their time does not allow, they resort to this expression: “Its men are known to be from the men of the Sahih,” meaning al-Bukhari and Muslim. But is there a defect or not? That requires study, and there is no time for it. Therefore, they limit themselves to this word. This word does not authenticate the chain of the hadith, nor does it grade it as good. All that this phrase gives is that one of the conditions of authenticity has been found in this chain: “the agreement of the men.” If he says, “The men of the chain are trustworthy,” and if he says, “Its men are the men of the Sahih,” that means they are trustworthy, plus the fact that al-Bukhari or Muslim or both together relied upon them.
This is what I wanted to point out from the hadith perspective. However, the reality of this hadith is authentic, and therefore I intentionally included it in my book, *Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah*, and its number is: .
Now we move on to the second hadith of the chapter in this session; namely, the sixty-seventh hadith, which is his saying:
From Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to give people their stipends. So a man came to him and he gave him a thousand dirhams, then he said: “Take it; for I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say: . This is the commodity we are discussing in these circumstances; where we said that Islam does not forbid accumulating wealth or earning it through a lawful, prescribed means. But the problem is this accumulation: how many are those people who are first able to accumulate it through a prescribed means? And if that is made easy for them, how many are those who spend this wealth earned through a prescribed means in a prescribed way? Very few, as will come in some explicit hadiths now. Those whom Allah has enriched from His bounty with wealth, few of them escape its consequences in accumulating this wealth. Therefore, Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) would warn whoever came to him to receive his stipend—meaning his livelihood. Ibn Mas'ud was a governor over some lands, and I think these lands were Kufa. So when he would distribute the stipends to the people and someone would come to him... he would say to him: “Take it, but... do not be deceived by it,” meaning: let it not be a cause of your destruction. For the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: .
Of course, the intention of this report is not every individual, no, but rather as a general principle, as we said in the verse: . This is the principle, and few escape from this, and that is what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) will explicitly state in a story that occurred to him with Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him).
The hadith after it is also authentic—excuse me, one hadith after it. The hadith we read from Ibn Mas'ud is the sixty-seventh. The sixty-eighth is also weak.
The sixty-ninth is authentic; and it is his saying: From Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sat on the pulpit and we sat around him; then he said: .
This is what the Messenger (peace be upon him) feared: what Allah (Mighty and Majestic) would open up of spoils and gains that would come as a result of the expansion of the Islamic call. And this is what happened. Therefore—as passed with us and will also come—some of the Companions feared for themselves that they might have been tested with the adornment and beauty of this world when wealth came to them. So one of them would work all day to obtain his daily sustenance.
'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) worked one day for a Jew to draw water from the well of his orchard, in exchange for one date for every bucket. 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, who became a Caliph in his time, worked as a laborer for a Jew, in exchange for one date for every bucket of water drawn. These Companions who were living in hardship had the world opened up to them. They came to have slaves, they came to have concubines. Some of them enjoyed what Allah had prescribed for them, some of them bought and sold, and Allah had also permitted that for them. So some of the most pious among them feared for themselves that they might have been tested, because the Messenger informed them that he did not fear poverty for them, but rather he feared that the world would be opened up to them, and he feared for them the adornment of the world and its trial.
The three hadiths following the previous one are weak. However, I am adding a note to draw your attention to a report from the Companions regarding when they sat with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) while he was on the pulpit. You have heard that they sat around him. You cannot say today, “We sat around you” or “We sat in front of you.” How can it be imagined that they sat around him in the mosque while he was on the pulpit? This means that the majority of worshippers today are contrary to this etiquette, because they continue to face the qiblah, whereas the Sunnah is to face the imam while he preaches to them on the pulpit. This is what Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sat on the pulpit, and we sat around him.” There was a semi-circle surrounding the Messenger (peace be upon him), considering that the mosque is longer than it is deep, unlike our current situation. And so, even though our current situation, meaning the situation of a mosque like the Prophet’s mosque, has a very narrow length and a wide width, it is observed that the idea requires—as suggested by the common saying among the people, “The eye is the ladle of speech”—that I observe now that some people are not facing the qiblah wall. Despite the narrowness of the place, they face the one who is speaking. Why? Because this is a psychological matter. When the common people say, “The eye is the ladle of speech,” this is not the speech of the unlearned; it is the speech of the wise. Because it is established or settled in knowledge that any matter for which two senses are available has a greater effect on the person who has two senses directed toward it than on the person who has only one sense. And the more senses are involved, the greater the effect. The person who hears is affected by this speech, but the person who hears and sees is affected even more. From this, some of the wisdoms of legislation and some of the actions legislated by Allah, either through the tongue of His Prophet or through His practice and behavior, become apparent. For example: the movement of raising the hands in prayer, the movement of the finger in the tashahhud, looking at this finger, and directing this finger toward the qiblah. All of this directs the heart of this worshipper to a single reality, which is the oneness of Allah, Lord of the worlds. He is the One who commanded him to direct his entire being toward the qiblah, so he directs even his finger, even the toes of his feet. For example, in prostration, and in the tashahhud, he directs the toes of his right foot toward the qiblah. All of this is an affirmation that the human being directs all his limbs to the obedience of his Lord (Mighty and Majestic). This obedience concentrates in his heart the intended meanings of this worship.
Likewise, when people sit to listen to the preacher, it is not sufficient for him to face only the qiblah; because he is now in prayer, now in a sermon, in remembrance: . You are now in remembrance, so you must direct your entire being to this remembrance. Part of this totality is that you direct your body, that you direct your sight, that you direct your hearing. The one in whom these qualities are present is more affected by what he hears of the remembrance than the one who directs only his sight or only his hearing to this preacher or this one who reminds.
This is an etiquette derived from this hadith, and although it was mentioned in a chapter or section on asceticism and disinterest in this world, here is an etiquette from the etiquettes of the Companions with the Messenger (peace be upon him); they used to sit around him while he was on the pulpit.
Therefore, on Friday, the Sunnah is not for people to stand in rows; because if they stand for prayer, they are preparing for the row. No, rather they should form circles around the imam. Then, when the iqamah is called for prayer, they should then focus on straightening the rows for it. This is a reminder on the occasion of the statement of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sat on the pulpit, and we sat around him.”
As for the seventy-third hadith, it is his saying: And from Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: “I was walking with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Harrah of Madinah, when one of them met us, and he said: O Abu Dharr! I said: At your service, O Messenger of Allah! He said: ; to his right and to his left and behind him. Then he proceeded, and then he (peace and blessings be upon him) went on walking and said: . And in a hadith that follows: , ; to his right and to his left and behind him, and few are they . Then he said to me: the hadith. He said: Al-Bukhari narrated it, and the wording is his, and Muslim, and his wording is, and in a wording of Muslim, he said—meaning Abu Dharr—: “I came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and he was sitting to the right of the Ka'bah. When he saw me, he said: . He said: So I came and sat down, and I did not stay long before I said: I said: O Messenger of Allah! My father and mother be sacrificed for you, who are they—the most wretched? He said: the hadith. And Ibn Majah narrated it in a shortened form: This is very important.
... And his earnings, what are they? Forbidden. No, rather he said: —also.
We return to explaining what is necessary to explain from the hadith. Abu Dharr said—and he is a well-known Companion, and one of the famous ones for asceticism and disinterest in this world—he said: “I was walking with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Harrah of Madinah.” The Harrah is the land in which there are many small black stones, and Madinah is approximately all surrounded by Harrah. Although some scholars limit the Harrah to the northern direction only, the more general view is the most correct; because there are some hadiths indicating that the Harrah is not limited only to the northern land of Madinah. And this is confirmed by the fact that there is no difference between the northern, eastern, and western lands; because all of them contain these black stones. So he says:
He said: . And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said in another hadith: . Here, he attributed a feeling to one of them, and that is by loving them. And someone might say: How is that, and it is inanimate? We say: This is like the feeling of a dog when it sees its owner; it displays a special movement. It rejoices at the arrival of its owner with a special movement... This is an animal that does not understand; it has its understanding, but it is an animal understanding within its limits. And this animal understanding is specific to this animal, which is a dog. And there are many animals, as we know, and every animal has a specific understanding of its own. So what prevents... Allah is vast, that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) created in inanimate objects a type of feeling, not of the type specific to humans? So when the news spreads, it is obligatory to believe and submit.

The questioner: The incident of the trunk.

The Shaykh: Many, we do not want to expand, the incident of the trunk, and the incident of the.

The questioner : ... .
No, I want to mention the story of the Cave; ; the wall wants to collapse. Here, will is attributed to the wall. So the deniers of the divine attributes come and say: This is metaphorical and not what? Reality. We are with the legal linguistic rule: that the original state of every expression is reality, and that it is not permissible to depart from it to metaphor except with evidence that compels us to this departure, if there is no evidence. So the rule says: It is obligatory to remain with reality. So now, in such a hadith: ; what is the evidence that compels us to figurative interpretation? Our ignorance; that there is a special feeling of love in this mountain. Is this ignorance evidence?
Answer: No; therefore we say that faith in Islam as the Book and the Sunnah is what broadens the believer's horizon, mind, and thinking, and the opposite is entirely the opposite. For this reason, we constantly and forever call for following the Book and the Sunnah, not in the manner of figurative interpretation (ta'wil); that is the method innovated by the later generations (the Khalaf), but rather in the manner of submission (taslim) followed by the earliest generations (the Salaf). And so we constantly and forever repeat: We do not call for the Book and the Sunnah only, but for the Book and the Sunnah according to the methodology of the righteous Salaf. Otherwise, there is no difference between these Muslims who have reached seventy-three sects, or nearly so, or more; Allah knows best about that. But the important thing is that the division is much and very much. They all say: "Book and Sunnah," even the Qadiyyan who claim the prophethood of the boy Ahmad al-Qadiyani, they say: "On the Book and the Sunnah," but they interpret the texts in this way by way of figurative interpretation (ta'wil), and deny the true meanings of the texts of the Book and the Sunnah.
"He said: So we turned toward al-Uhd, and he said—meaning the Messenger (peace be upon him)—'O Abu Dharr!' He said: 'At your service, O Messenger of Allah!'" Here is an observation: Why does he call him when he is with him? This is in the category of preparing the soul to receive the knowledge that will be placed upon it... He said: . He said: "At your service, O Messenger of Allah!" And this is a known response linguistically, and its usage is known frequently and very frequently from the Companions with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). And perhaps... it is from the word "Yes."
I said: "At your service, O Messenger of Allah!" He said (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him)—look at the best of humans, the one protected from Satan playing with him and testing him with wealth—he says: The Messenger does not like to have a mountain of gold like Mount al-Uhd.
This is how the copy is, but... al-Bukhari meaning: on this much gold that is with the Messenger (peace be upon him).
meaning: A third night after the Messenger (peace be upon him) acquired this much wealth. Even if it were like Mount al-Uhd, it would not please him that this wealth remains with him the first night, the second night, and the third night. You enter and the wealth is still with him; the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not pleased with this. meaning: That the Messenger does not keep any wealth with him at all. What does he do with it? He distributes it as indicated in the hadith, to the right and to the left and behind, and not only in front; meaning: he spends it on the Muslims around him.
There is an exception in it. He says: ; meaning he does not save any wealth at all, except wealth for which he has a debt that he wants to pay. And a lot of wealth has come to him, so he cuts out this debt from it and saves it with him until when its owner comes, he gives it to him, so that he does not reject it; because wealth has come to him. For this excuse and this saving of the wealth to pay the debt that is upon him, only then does he hold it back (peace be upon him). As for anything other than that, he distributes it and spends it as he said: . Thus the Messenger (peace be upon him) encourages his Ummah that when wealth comes to them, they should not save it, but spend it in the paths of good.
But what is the ruling in Islam on this spending and leaving this saving that the Messenger (peace be upon him) indicated, that he does not save wealth no matter how much it is, except what is a debt upon him? Is this spending obligatory? Is this saving forbidden?
Here we must now understand the topic that is raised in the present age, exploiting Islam in the service of some schools of thought contrary to Islam; namely the socialist or communist school. And many malicious writers and some sincere writers have exploited such a hadith, making Islam forbid the rich from saving their wealth, and they claimed that Islam obligates and imposes upon them to spend all their wealth, as is the case with this hadith of Abu Dharr.
For that reason, we say: Any ruling in Islam is not permissible to be taken from a single text, but from a collection of texts. This hadith, without doubt, contains a very strong encouragement to spend and a warning against saving. But the precise ruling and the jurisprudential ruling is not taken from this hadith alone. All... agreed that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) imposed zakah on specific types of wealth—also—limited in every year, in every season, and with a known percentage. So when He imposed this zakah at the rate of two and a half—for example—on currency, at the rate of ten or less for agricultural crops; that means that what is beyond that is permissible for the Muslim to enjoy, and it is permissible to save it. And therefore, any wealth from which its zakah has been extracted is not a treasure for which its owner will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. And hadiths have passed with us in the book "Al-Targhib wa al-Tarhib" warning the rich who hoard gold and silver, and that they will be branded on the Day of Resurrection. So what does it mean that they hoard it? Meaning: they do not extract the right that Allah has imposed upon them in it.
So it is not obligatory for the Muslim to extract all of his wealth and not sleep with any wealth with him. But this is from the virtues of deeds, from the noble morals; that the Muslim, if Allah enriches him from His bounty, should spend it. And with that, here is another thing that must be mentioned: it does not mean that he leaves his family, his household, and his children poor. This wealth came to him, so he went out with all of it, and he did not mess with it, but rather for the Muslims. However, the most deserving of the Muslims of some of this wealth are the closest relatives. And therefore, this does not contradict the hadith that passed with us—also—in the book of Zakah: "That the Messenger (peace be upon him) used to save for his household the sustenance of a year." So this is a combination of rights; so from one side he does not forget the rights of his household, and from another side he does not save the wealth that exceeds the rights of his household and spends it on the Muslims.
In summary: The wealth that is obligatory to extract is not all wealth, but rather a known percentage in the books of jurisprudence and by the consensus of the Muslims. As for going out with all of that or half of the wealth, these are matters from the virtues and noble morals, and people differ in that to the greatest extent. And we had also mentioned in some previous lessons that stinginess is of two types: stinginess for which a person is punished; and that is if he is stingy with what Allah has imposed upon him. And the other stinginess is blamed for, but he is not punished for it; and that is the one who does not spend to the right and to the left and in front and behind.
So from this we distinguish between what is obligatory and what is recommended (mustahabb), and people vary in this. And perhaps it passed in our book or in our lesson the hadith of 'Umar's race with Abu Bakr. 'Umar said after a final trial between him and Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him): That Abu Bakr heard on an occasion an encouragement to spend in the path of Allah, so he came with all his wealth to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). He said to him (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him): . He said: "I have left for them Allah and His Messenger." So 'Umar came and presented half of his wealth. When he knew what his companion had done, he said: "No one has raced me but he has outpaced me," and he did not race him. So Abu Bakr went out with all his wealth, and 'Umar went out with half of his wealth, and people are of different degrees. And it is very rare for a sane Muslim to go out with all his wealth. And therefore, I almost consider Abu Bakr's going out with all his wealth as a distinction like the distinction of the Messenger (peace be upon him) here, where he says: That it does not please him that three nights pass over him and he has the like of Mount al-Uhd in gold remaining with him.
That is because justice in rights is very difficult. A person goes out with his wealth; do you think he is fulfilling all the rights regarding his children, his wife, his relatives? The precise balance is not done well except by very few individuals, and among them is Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, or he is the first of them and the last.
Therefore, the Sufis are blamed for making the abandonment of wealth a principle for themselves, a principle without the detail that one who abandons his wealth must not forget the rights of others. And so they narrate the alleged story that took place between Imam al-Shafi'i and Shayban the Shepherd, and the people of knowledge say: this is a fabricated story; because Imam al-Shafi'i did not live to see Shayban the Shepherd, for there is a distance between them. Rather, some Sufi sects invented it to call people to their school of thought; they claimed that al-Shafi'i met Shayban the Shepherd, and he described him as an unlettered man, and yet he was a jurist; meaning he possessed the alleged innate knowledge. So he asked him: what is upon a man who makes a mistake in prayer?The questioner : The questioner was Imam al-Shafi'i, and the one asked was Shayban the Shepherd. Shayban said to al-Shafi'i: Is it with us or with you?
He said: What is the difference between what is with us and what is with you?
He said: Yes.
He said: No... What is with us and what is with you?
He said: As for with you, the one who makes a mistake in prayer performs the prostration for forgetfulness, and the matter is ended.
He said: And what is with you?
He said: As for with us, the one who makes a mistake in prayer should have his neck cut off!
He asked him another question: What is obligatory upon the Muslim regarding zakah?
He said to him: Is it with us or with you?
He said to him: And - likewise - is there a difference between what is with us and what is with you?
He said: Yes.
He said: With us and with you, specify.
He said: With you, one pays out two and a half, and thus he has fulfilled the obligatory duty.
He said: And what is with you?
He said: With us, one pays out from all of his wealth.
They made this a rule, and this is an error; because abandoning all of one's wealth may lead to matters that contradict Islam.
And indeed, if you read the stories of the Sufis in this field, you will find the most astonishing things. Even among us, some hadith scholars were afflicted with Sufism. So one wasted a portion of his life in the science of hadith, and when he became a Sufi, he took the books of hadith and burned them. Another took them and buried them in the ground. Another had wealth and threw it into the sea. All of this is abandoning wealth, as if abandoning wealth became the goal, whereas the goal of abandoning wealth is to purify the soul and make it pure, but not to ruin the homes of others! Help yourself by helping your Muslim brothers.
Perhaps I have prolonged this now, and in reality, there are many comments on this hadith, so perhaps we will postpone that to the next lesson; so that we may turn to answering the remaining questions, which are so numerous that we cannot answer them all, and therefore, excuse us from your questions tonight.