Some of the doubts raised by some questioners: They say, “It has reached us from some of them that you say: ‘The Salaf exerted effort in the branches, and we exert effort in the principles.’”

The questioner : These are some of the doubts that some people ask about.The questioner : They say, the first one: It has reached us from some of them that you say: “The Salaf exerted effort in the branches, and we exert effort in the principles.” They gave as an example that you say, “Indeed, Allah has eyes”; what is the truth of that? And the other says: How do you call for non-sectarianism while your students follow you in taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), and they say about the Companions: “They are men and we are men”?

The Shaykh : Glory be to You, this is a great slander! First of all, we do not claim ijtihad (independent legal reasoning); rather, we claim following. And if we do exert effort, we exert it in matters in which those before us did not exert effort. The scholars of the Islamic Ummah (the Muslim community), by their sincerity in their knowledge and in their calling their Ummah to act according to the Book and the Sunnah, have not left a statement for a speaker who comes after them. From our guidance and our creed, what we say on various occasions—and perhaps that was in the recent past or before that—we say: If two statements come from the scholars of the Muslims regarding one issue, we say: It is not permissible for anyone to introduce a third statement. Rather, he must choose—if he is one of the people of knowledge and choice—one of these two statements. And if we assume that there are three statements, he must choose one of these three statements, and it is not permissible for him to introduce a fourth statement. So how do we exert effort in the principles while those people exerted effort in the branches? They exerted effort—may Allah reward them with good—in the principles and in the branches; they did not leave room for anyone to exert effort in the principles and in the branches in a way that the Islamic Ummah would be in need of it in every time and every place. But they ordered those who are prepared to understand the Book and the Sunnah, with the knowledge they were given, to take from where they took, and not to follow a specific imam in taqlid, as we said in the recent past: do not take taqlid as a religion, do not make following a specific imam your religion. Rather, each one of them should follow in what he got right, in accordance with the Book and the Sunnah. And as I said just now: If we exert effort with some of our brothers from the people of knowledge, we only exert effort in matters in which those imams did not previously speak. Otherwise, we are followers of what they said. Either they agreed, and we are with them in their agreement, or they differed, and we are with one of their statements, as we said just now.
I give you an example of what happens today, where people need a fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) from the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) that did not exist before: filling cavities in teeth and extracting decayed teeth, which is a known technique in medicine. Therefore, it has happened now that a person, especially when he grows old and ages, his teeth decay, and it is necessary to fill them. The following question came: Is it permissible to fill a tooth? Some of the scholars who follow in taqlid gave an answer with strangeness, as you will hear: It is not permissible to fill a tooth. Why? Because when the tooth is filled, it prevents water from reaching it, and rinsing the mouth in ghusl (the full ritual bath) is obligatory (fard) according to this person, and this is what we consider the stronger position, that rinsing the mouth in ghusl is obligatory. So if he fills the tooth, the water does not reach the place where the decay was. Therefore, it is not permissible to fill this tooth!
What is the answer now to such an issue, when we do not find in the books of jurists in all the schools of jurisprudence any mention of this issue, because it was not known to them? And similar to it is praying in an airplane, as we spoke about it in the recent past, and we mentioned to you how some of those who follow in taqlid issued a fatwa, while warning against ijtihad, issuing a fatwa and exerting effort that praying in an airplane is permissible, and he has no predecessor among the imams he follows. Similarly, we now bring a new example: Who gives the answer that corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah? The one who follows books and searches for the exact issue in the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) books that contain thousands of branches, such that the most memorizing person cannot encompass them with knowledge?!
I mention to you now an example that supports what I am dealing with now: Some of the muftis (scholars who issue fatwas) among us in Syria—and in this is a lesson, so pay attention and take heed—a question came to one of the great muftis from an owner of refrigerators who stores fruits and meats. One day, an Armenian man—meaning: a Christian, there are Armenians in Syria who are widespread—he is a Christian—offered this Muslim a high fee if he stored pork for him in his refrigerators. And you know that the Muslim who is zealous for his religion hardly hears the name of a pig mentioned without the hair on his head standing up. So when he heard this offer, his heart was repelled, but his soul feared, yet he hesitated between greed and fear of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). He said: I must ask the mufti so that I may be clear about my matter and my religion. He went to the mufti in his office and told him the story. He said to him: Go and write your question, and submit it to us, and we will give you the answer. He submitted the question to him later, and he said to him: Return to us after a week. He returned to the greatest mufti after a week and said: We have not obtained the answer. And so for three weeks, he kept going back and forth to the greatest mufti to obtain the answer: Is it permissible for a Muslim to store pork for a Christian? In the last week—the third—he entered, knocked on the door, “Peace be upon you,” “And upon you be peace,” and the mufti greeted him with joy and happiness. He said: I have obtained the answer for you. Look at this great, immense ijtihad! After three weeks, the mufti, according to such-and-such a school, was able to obtain the answer for such an easy, lenient issue. Knowing—as you know—that the mufti has employees under his hand, he tasks each one to review book after book, and so on. And he gave him the answer and sealed it for him. The man barely left the room to the courtyard when he took the answer and read it from beginning to end. He did not understand whether it was haram (forbidden) or halal (lawful). He repeated the reading time after time and did not understand anything. He had a car driver, so he told him the story. He said to him: O Shaykh (a scholar or teacher), read this fatwa to me, by Allah, I did not understand anything from it. I asked him: Is it permissible or not permissible? He read it, and his position was the position of the same man. He said: No, we do not understand. In some statements, it is not permissible; in some statements, it is permissible; in some statements, the fee is halal; and in some statements, the fee is haram, and so on.
Finally, he said to him: Come, I will direct you to a person who is not a mufti; he is my timekeeper—he means me—because I, praise be to Allah, am a timekeeper, and I have never held a job in this world. This one and that one both came to me, they submitted the fatwa to me, and they told me the story. So I was amazed at what was in the fatwa; that is because the mufti did not exert effort, but rather he followed the books he relies on in issuing fatwas. He says, for example: It came in such-and-such a book: If a Muslim is hired by a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection) to build a church for him, is it permissible for him? Such-and-such an imam—meaning any of the imams of the school—said: It is permissible and his fee is pure. And such-and-such an imam said: It is not permissible and his fee is not lawful. And another narration or another statement from another book: A man was hired by a dhimmi to transport khamr (intoxicants) for him on his animal; is it permissible? And is his fee lawful? Also, there are contradictory, conflicting statements. In conclusion, the greatest mufti says: And from what precedes, the answer becomes clear!!
And I do not think any of you understands the answer! Because the answer is based on contradictory statements, and he has the right to do so; for it is customary for him not to issue a ruling that contradicts the books before him first, and it is not permissible for him to exercise independent legal reasoning second. Therefore, he merely transmitted these reports and fulfilled his duty, even if he did not answer his questioner directly, but only presented the two contradictory opinions.
This reminds me of a point that may be fanciful, but it is closely connected to this real story. They claim that a certain mufti in the old days had to travel, so he thought about who would replace him in his position of issuing fatwas. He said to his father: "O my father, I am traveling now, so please replace me after I am gone." His father said: "How can I, when I am not skilled in knowledge?" He said: "I will show you a method by which you can get by with"The questioner : them despite the variety of their questions. He said: "What is it?" He said: "Whenever a questioner comes to you and you do not know the answer, say to him: 'O my father, there are two opinions in this matter. For example, the divorce took place or it did not take place; there are two opinions in the matter; it is permissible or it is not permissible.' And so this father, who replaced his son after him, would say in every matter: 'There are two opinions in this matter.' And as is said in some athar—and some people think it is a hadith traced to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), but it is a fabricated hadith—: 'Whoever follows a scholar will meet Allah in a safe state.' So you mention that there are two opinions in the matter, and the matter is ended!!"
Notice this routine, clichéd, condemned, printed answer that does not change from this agent to his son. One of the clever people noticed this and said to him one day—and he wanted such an answer—he said: "O His Excellency,"The Shaykh : "May I ask you a question?" He said: "Go ahead." He said: "Is there any doubt about Allah?" He said: "There are two opinions in this matter."
... This is the knowledge practiced today by those who do not adopt this Salafi methodology! We return to the matter of filling a tooth; that scholar could not permit the man who had a tooth extracted to have it filled by a doctor; because he would remain in a state of major ritual impurity for his entire life; and consequently, he would have no prayer! And I am not speaking of imagination; this is a story that happened to us in Damascus, the Levant. The father separated from his son because he had his teeth filled secretly from his father. When the news reached him, he demanded that he have his teeth pulled out!! He said: "I am not able to do that; first: I spent a lot of money. Second: there is someone who issued a fatwa permitting it. Third: it is difficult."
Intermediaries entered between the father and the son. Finally, his father agreed to relinquish his opinion on one condition: that a fatwa be brought to him from the Grand Mufti. This mufti is not the previous mufti whose story I mentioned, who did not answer regarding the permissibility or prohibition of taking payment for storing pork. The intermediaries, who were people of good, went to the mufti and told him the story; is it permissible to fill a tooth? The mufti said: "Yes, it is permissible." He saidThe questioner: "But the story is that one of the fathers—and he is a scholar—did such and such with his son, so we want a proof to convince him; what is the evidence?" He said: "The evidence in our school of jurisprudence is a text—listen to this text, and reflect with me on this analogical reasoning, then look at this analogical reasoning in light of the authentic Sunnah." The Grand Mufti said: "It is permissible to fill a tooth by analogy to filling a foot." He said: "It is mentioned in the books of jurisprudence that if the foot cracks in the cold winter days, especially for farmers, where their heels become hardened and crack and may bleed, the scholars used to issue a fatwa in the past that it is permissible to fill these cracks to prevent the harm of cold water to the foot." So the mufti—may Allah reward him with good, for he permitted it—permitted it by the way of analogizing filling a tooth to filling a foot. That father did not accept this proof transmitted to him from the mufti, but he requested an official fatwa. He said: "Let it be placed with him in his shroud, and let it be a proof between him and his Lord, that I am satisfied with my son based on the mufti's opinion." The intermediary returned to the mufti and requested an official fatwa; because the father was not convinced by the mere transmission from the intermediary. The mufti answered—and here too is a place of great astonishment: "We cannot give an official fatwa; because we do not find a text permitting the filling of a tooth, but I said this based on my opinion." So the intermediary returned empty-handed, as the saying goes.
It was my turn at that time, and I was a young man of about twenty-five or thirty years of age. So I went to the mufti and summarized for him what had occurred between him and the intermediary. He agreed. We said: "The father was not convinced, so we hope you will give us a slip of paper." He said: "O Shaykh, I am not able to." I said to him: "Do you not have evidence?" He said: "Yes." I said to him: "Write down that evidence you have." He said: "I am not able to." So I returned—also—empty-handed!! This is from the Grand Mufti in Syria, and that one was the same. Listen to the answer now from the young man. As for the first case, when the two men, the merchant of refrigerators and his driver, came to me and I read the fatwa, I said: "You are right, no one can get a decisive answer from him. But listen, my brother, even if you are not a scholar, you are an Arab Syrian. If I say to you: Allah—Blessed and Exalted is He—said: ; do you need us to explain this verse to you, and that it forbids cooperation in sin and aggression?" He said: "No, by Allah, I do not need that." I said to him: "So do you not agree with me that if you keep the pork for that Christian in your refrigerators; are you not helping him in sin and aggression?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Then it is forbidden for you to store this impure, abominable meat, and it is forbidden for you to consider the payment lawful." Then I mentioned to him the hadith: . These two hadiths are an explanation of that noble verse: . He said to me: "May Allah reward you with good, I do not need more than that." And he left feeling reassured, and that Armenian Christian returned empty-handed—also.
As for the tooth, a discussion took place between me and some of them—I was not able to discuss it with the mufti; because you know that muftis cannot be discussed with. I said to one of those who is enthusiastic about forbidding the filling of a tooth: "There is a hadith, and there is a branch of jurisprudence; as for the hadith, it is what came in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and the Sunan and other books from 'Urfajah ibn Sa'd (may Allah be pleased with him) that his nose tip was injured in the Battle of Kulab—and it was a battle in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, his nose tip was cut off—so he made a nose from paper—meaning: from silver—and it became foul-smelling for him. We know, by virtue of my profession in repairing watches, that silver, like iron and copper, rusts with a green pus. So when he placed this borrowed nose of silver, due to its contact with nasal moisture, rust accumulated on it and his nose became foul-smelling. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saw him, and he had already embraced Islam, so he ordered him (peace and blessings be upon him) to make a nose from gold."
We said to thatThe Shaykh : O Shaykh, which of the two is more in need of a gold nose: the one with the nose defect or the one with the tooth defect? The one with the tooth defect, as everyone knows, whether they are a doctor or a patient, all of them know that the one who has suffered damage to his teeth is in greater need of having them filled than having a nose made; because this nose only restores the perfection of the appearance, whereas filling the teeth restores the digestion of food, upon which the health of the body depends. So if the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who forbade gold for men, granted this man a dispensation to make a nose of gold to restore Allah's creation to what is closest to beauty and perfection, then it is all the more permissible for a man whose teeth have been lost to fill them with gold. He said to me—and he was arguing with me—he said to me: "There is no text in this hadith regarding this nose." Even though he does not act upon the hadith, because he is a rigid imitator. He said: "The hadith does not state that this nose was fixed." He says: "This nose could be like a set of dentures; when a person eats or performs ablution, he removes them, washes them, and then puts them back on. It is possible that this nose was of that type, and that it could be placed after being washed." I said: "No, if that were the case, his first nose, which was made of paper—meaning silver—would not have stank. If he had washed it every time he performed ablution, the rust and dirt would not have accumulated on his nose." This is evidence from the Sunnah.
It is evidence from the statements of the Imams whom he follows. But when a person blocks the insight that Allah has commanded every Muslim to have, he no longer sees the truth, however clear and apparent it may be. It is mentioned in the texts of the Hanafi books that they said: "It is permissible to bind the teeth with wire," meaning the tooth that moves and is about to fall out; it is permissible to bind it with wire. So I said to thatThe Shaykh : one who is fanatically attached to his school of jurisprudence, I said: "This binding will take from the space of the two bound teeth—one being the sick, moving tooth, and the other being the solid, fixed tooth. When one is tied to the other, this wire will take up space on both sides of the teeth, preventing water from reaching the area between the wire and the bone of the tooth. And they say: If a place the size of the head of a needle remains in the mouth where water does not reach, then the washing is invalid. Here, it is not just the head of a needle, but heads of needles that prevent water from reaching them. If this is permissible, then what is similar to it and greater than it is permissible, because the operative cause is the same: the failure of water to reach the area." He did not accept it, nor did he accept it, because they do not follow the path to which we call all people, each according to his capacity. Allah the Exalted said: .
We want all Islamic groups to first agree with us in thought and knowledge that the methodology to which we call is the true methodology. Second, we want them to walk with us as much as they are able in everything that is established in the Book and the Sunnah, and not to say as that ignorant mufti said: "There are two opinions on the issue, and whoever follows a scholar will meet Allah in a safe state."
This is what Allah has made easy for me—also—as an answer to what came in that question.