The Shaykh Al-Albani’s mention of stories indicating the hypocrisy and lying of the sultan’s scholars, which leads to the destruction of the religion.

The Shaykh : So I say: ; that is: no wagering, , three things. This is an authentic hadith, narrated in some of the books of the Sunan, such as "Sunan Abu Dawud" - may Allah have mercy on him - in the presence of one of the Abbasid kings, and I think it was al-Ma'mun. There was a man among the jurists named Ibrahim ibn Ghiyath. We can label this jurist with the title that al-Ghazali, or al-Ghazali - may Allah have mercy on him - uses in his book *Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din*, where he divides scholars into two categories: scholars of appearances and scholars of the Hereafter. By scholars of appearances, he means those who align with, or agree with, unfortunately, most of the scholars of the end of times. Why? Why did he label them scholars of appearances? Because they served the princes. What did they do? They agreed with them and followed them. Scholars of appearances. Allahu Akbar. I remember a story that happened in Egypt with one of the Khedives. He wanted to enact a law. One of the senior scholars of al-Azhar said to him: Choose from the terrestrial laws of France, Switzerland, and so on, and from the British, and whatever you wish. Take from these laws whatever you want, and I will support every text with Islamic jurisprudence. And this is something very dangerous. Why? And this is actually related to what I was aiming for in answering the third question, because he takes from every school of jurisprudence what is in it of ease, what agrees with these laws. For example, in some schools of jurisprudence, it is permissible to drink intoxicants made from anything other than grapes, made from any fruit other than grapes, but on the condition that you do not drink to the point of intoxication; the forbidden thing is the intoxicant... As for grapes, the wine of grapes, its little and its much, is forbidden. This distinction is contrary to the correct Sunnah, yet it exists in some schools of jurisprudence. This dangerous and very dangerous distinction. So, it is possible to enact a law permitting the drinking of intoxicants, which they call "non-intoxicating," this soft, pleasant word, "non-intoxicating." Corn wine and barley, and any other juice that ferments, as long as it is not grape juice, it is permissible. It is permissible to sell and buy it, press it, and so on, but beware of becoming intoxicated from it. This has been established for a long time. But the strange thing is that I read in *Al-Arabi* magazine, which is published in Kuwait, a man wrote an article and relied on this school of jurisprudence, because Iraq, as you know, and what do you know about Iraq? There, intoxicants are very widespread, very much so. And wine, wine from dates is widespread. Dates are not grapes, so wine from dates is permissible, but without intoxication. In conclusion, this is just an example, and we do not dwell on it. Place any material from terrestrial laws, and I will support it with Islamic jurisprudence. And this means destroying Islam in the name of Islam. This man named Ibrahim ibn Ghiyath, to please the caliph, narrated the hadith as you just heard, but he added one word to please the prince and the caliph. He said: The Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - said, narrating it with the chain , he added from his own side ; because the caliph, and this is known in history at that time, these rapid postal means did not exist, so they used birds, which they called carrier pigeons. They raised them with special training. For example, they would raise them here in Oman for a long period, then transfer them, let us say, to Damascus or to the Hijaz. They would be kept there as long as Allah wills. If the ruler there wanted to send a rapid telegram, he would write it on a small card, attach it to this bird, and release it. So the bird, subhan Allah, would return. But this is what it was trained for. So the rulers at that time had this hobby. He wanted to please this prince and receive a reward, so he added a word to the authentic hadith that has no basis. He said: The Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - said . The caliphs at that time, in reality, whatever violations of the Shari'ah came from them, they were far better than the rulers of the end of times. The rulers of the end of times, you hardly find among them a scholar, except what is said about this ruler of Morocco, that he has some knowledge. But my belief is that this knowledge is traditional, meaning... The point is that the previous caliphs and the rulers from the Umayyads and the Abbasids were scholars. So when he heard this hadith, he knew that the word was inserted by this scholar, who is one of the scholars of appearances. When he left his presence, he said, "I bear witness that the back of your head is the back of a liar." The back of your head is the back of a liar. True, here, meaning he mentions what is in their favor, and we mention what is against them. He testified that the back of his head was the back of a liar, but at least he did not mean... and he rebuked him, he did not punish him with discretionary punishment, which is a chapter of the Shari'ah, at the time when he said, "I bear witness that the back of your head is the back of a liar." He sent him a gift, and on the other hand, he ordered the slaughter of the pigeon in retaliation for the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, where the pigeon was the cause for the insertion of this word.