The Criterion of Loyalty, Disavowal, and Boycott
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Your Eminence! Regarding the issue of dyeing the beard black, if a da'iyah (caller to Islam) who is firmly established in knowledge dyes his hair black, does the disagreement with him become a disagreement upon which loyalty and disavowal are based? In other words, should he be denounced and his knowledge boycotted because of that, or is this of the kind of disputed matters for which an excuse is sought?
It is obligatory for a person to base his loyalty and disavowal on evidence from the Shari'ah, not on his own desires. So, if it happens that someone disagrees with him based on the evidence he holds, it is not permissible for him to disavow him or to be hostile toward him. Have you seen if a person prayed after eating camel meat without performing wudu'? For those who hold that wudu' is required after eating camel meat, praying without wudu' is a major sin among the major sins.So, if we see a person who says: It has not become clear to me that wudu' is obligatory after eating camel meat, so I pray and do not perform wudu' because of it.Do we say: Must we be hostile toward him?Answer: No.
No, it is not permissible for us to be hostile toward him, nor to hold a grudge against him. Likewise, if we see a person who holds that dyeing the beard black is permissible, we do not be hostile toward him, but we discuss the matter with him until each of us reaches the truth. If the truth does not become clear to him, and we know that the man is sincere in seeking the truth but it has not become clear to him, then we do not be hostile toward him either.But if we know that the man is insistent on his opinion and says: Yes.
This hadith indicates the prohibition of black dye, but I have become accustomed to it, and I do not want to change from it. In that case, he has disobeyed Allah with full knowledge. There is no objection to boycotting him if there is a benefit in boycotting him.
It is obligatory for a person to base his loyalty and disavowal on evidence from the Shari'ah, not on his own desires. So, if it happens that someone disagrees with him based on the evidence he holds, it is not permissible for him to disavow him or to be hostile toward him. Have you seen if a person prayed after eating camel meat without performing wudu'? For those who hold that wudu' is required after eating camel meat, praying without wudu' is a major sin among the major sins.So, if we see a person who says: It has not become clear to me that wudu' is obligatory after eating camel meat, so I pray and do not perform wudu' because of it.Do we say: Must we be hostile toward him?Answer: No.
No, it is not permissible for us to be hostile toward him, nor to hold a grudge against him. Likewise, if we see a person who holds that dyeing the beard black is permissible, we do not be hostile toward him, but we discuss the matter with him until each of us reaches the truth. If the truth does not become clear to him, and we know that the man is sincere in seeking the truth but it has not become clear to him, then we do not be hostile toward him either.But if we know that the man is insistent on his opinion and says: Yes.
This hadith indicates the prohibition of black dye, but I have become accustomed to it, and I do not want to change from it. In that case, he has disobeyed Allah with full knowledge. There is no objection to boycotting him if there is a benefit in boycotting him.