What is the ruling on expelling a member of a group due to a difference in an issue or opinion?

The questioner : Some Islamic groups that adopt the methodology of the Salaf may have members who have erred or fallen into a jurisprudential disagreement or prioritized da'wah (calling to Islam). If such a member is expelled for disagreeing with their leader or president, does this expulsion distance him from the root of his methodology?

The Shaykh : As for what I hear in this question about expelling a Muslim from the group, specifically the Salafi group, merely because he erred in one issue or another, I see this as nothing but the contagion of other political parties. This expulsion is part of the system of some Islamic parties that do not adopt the Salafi methodology in jurisprudence and understanding of Islam. Rather, they are a party dominated by the same characteristics that dominate other parties, namely clustering and gathering on the basis of a mini-state. If one leaves the obedience of their leader, they are warned first, second, and perhaps third, and then a ruling is made to expel them. It is not permissible for a group that truly belongs to the Book of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and to the methodology of the righteous Salaf, to adopt such a system. We all know that our righteous Salaf, led by the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), differed in some issues, and such disagreement was not, in the first place, a cause for creating any division among them, unlike the disagreement of the later generations. The later generations, due to their differences, became various schools of thought and distinct paths, to the point that many of them no longer considered it permissible to pray behind someone who differed from them in their school of thought. This became a jurisprudential branch that they explicitly stated in their books. They said in the texts of this jurisprudence: "It is not permissible to pray behind one who opposes the school of thought." This text exists in the Hanafi school, in the Shafi'i school, and in the commentaries or marginal notes, as they call them. One sees the most amazing details that the early Salaf did not know, first, and that the Salafis do not recognize, second, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has made them independent of falling into such things by the knowledge I mentioned earlier: that the Companions differed in some issues, yet they prayed behind one imam. As for the later generations, we find their traces in their mihrabs (prayer niches) to this day. We find four mihrabs in the Great Mosque: the first is for the Hanbalis, the second for the Shafi'is, the third, which is in the middle, for the Hanafis, and the last, to the east, for the Malikis, because they were fewer in number in that land. The Hanafi imam would lead the people in the Great Mosque until recently, until the French colonization of the Syrian lands. This is a legacy that the people of Syria inherited from the Ottoman era, because the Ottomans were all Hanafis. When France occupied Syria, they installed a president named Taj al-Din al-Husayni, who was a descendant of Badr al-Din al-Husayni. In his time, they used to say that he was the "muhaddith (scholar of hadith) of the Syrian lands." I am not here to discuss that. The important point is that this Shaykh Taj al-Din ibn Badr al-Din was the president, wearing a white turban over a fez, because that was how he lived. This was, of course, part of the French policy to establish calm in the lands they colonized. They saw that they should install a president for the Muslims who was a Shaykh with a turban. This man was a Shafi'i, so he changed the prayer system and made the Shafi'i imam pray before the Hanafi imam. This is one of the effects of sectarian fanaticism. The discussion here is long, but I am content now with a brief indication. As for our righteous Salaf, they were one hand and one block, praying behind one imam, even if that imam was wrong in his opinion. Among them, there were those who held views that went beyond the differences that still exist between the Hanafis and Shafi'is. For example, the Hanafi view is that if blood exits from any part of the body in an amount exceeding the threshold, the wudu (ablution) is invalidated, whereas the Shafi'is hold that it does not invalidate the wudu. However, among the Salaf, there were those who held the view of the majority of the Companions, upon which the consensus of the Ummah later agreed: that if a man has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate, ghusl (ritual bath) is not obligatory upon him. Some of the great Companions held this view, contrary to the majority of the Companions who said what the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: This hadith abrogated his saying (peace be upon him): Some of the Companions were informed of this second hadith: So they issued a fatwa that a man who has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate only needs to perform wudu, while ghusl is not obligatory upon him. But the Companions were also informed of the other hadith, which is his saying (peace be upon him): And yet, you would see these people praying behind the one who said that ghusl is not required. This is very similar to many of the differences that exist between the schools of thought to this day. But we see the great difference between the Salafi disagreement and the later disagreement. The Salafi disagreement was ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and intellectual, but it was not physical; it did not divide them. Therefore, they prayed behind one imam. That is why it is stated in the sound books of creed that among the beliefs of the Salaf, inherited by the later generations, is praying behind every righteous and sinful person, just as it is obligatory to pray the funeral prayer for every righteous and sinful person. We now say that some of the Companions disagreed with the Caliph in his opinion and ijtihad, and yet, was he expelled from the community of Muslims? Far be it from Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. For example, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to exercise ijtihad in some issues, getting it right in most cases and wrong in a few. Among these few, he forbade the Muslims from combining 'Umrah and Hajj and ordered them to perform Hajj alone, even though the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had approved combining or joining Hajj and 'Umrah in two ways. The first way is qiran (combining), but he (peace be upon him) only approved it for those who had brought the sacrificial animal from the non-sacred area. As for those who did not bring the sacrificial animal from the non-sacred area, he ordered them to break the ihram. This is a type of tamattu' (combining 'Umrah and Hajj with a break between them): combining Hajj and 'Umrah with bringing the sacrificial animal. This is tamattu'. The other, broader, and more comprehensive type of tamattu', which removes hardship, is performing 'Umrah before Hajj. This is the type to which the Messenger (peace be upon him) arrived in conveying the message to people in the Farewell Pilgrimage, as is known from his famous saying (peace be upon him): Jabir said: "So the people became lawful (to themselves), the fires blazed, and they came to the women." This is what the Messenger (peace be upon him) said in the Farewell Pilgrimage, which is the only pilgrimage he (peace be upon him) performed after the revelation of the Quran, and he stated this clear and explicit ruling. Nevertheless, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), out of his desire to increase the number of pilgrims and multiply the journeys to the Sacred House, held that 'Umrah and Hajj should be separated by two journeys so that people's visits to the mosque would be repeated. In this, there is undoubtedly a religious benefit for the Islamic Ummah at that time. I am not concerned now with saying whether this ijtihad of his was correct or wrong, like his ijtihad in making the divorce of three in one session count as three. Is this legal policy correct or not? That is not what concerns us, because legal policy may be temporary, either in one time and place, or in one time and other places, and then this policy ceases when the cause for it ceases. I am not concerned with this, but I am concerned with whether it is permissible to take 'Umar's policy in both issues as a Shari'ah that Muslims must follow until the Day of Resurrection, and for the Shari'ah to be reversed by saying that the divorce of three is one divorce, knowing that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ascended to the Companion in the Highest (died), and this divorce is considered one divorce. No Muslim can say that this ruling, which contradicts the Shari'ah, is correct. It is sufficient to say that it was an ijtihad by 'Umar in which he was correct in his time, but after that, it is not permissible to resort to it.
The point is that he prohibited combining 'Umrah with Hajj, even though the Qur'an is explicit in this: to the end of the verse. Then 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) passed away while adhering to this policy that he had adopted. Although a narration was reported from him, "If religion were based on personal desire", we would wish that this narration were authentic, for it states that 'Umar wished for three things: that he had asked the Messenger of Allah about the kalalah (residuary heirs), that he had retracted his statement that three pronouncements of divorce count as three, and that he had prohibited people from combining 'Umrah with Hajj. This is a weak narration, and we hope it is authentic in reality, but this is something we cannot be certain of, especially since 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) inherited this policy from his predecessor, the second Caliph, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. It is reported in Sahih Muslim that 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) came to 'Uthman after it had reached him that he was prohibiting people from combining 'Umrah with Hajj. 'Ali said, "O Malik, do you prohibit people from combining 'Umrah with Hajj when we did it in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Here I am, responding to Allah with 'Umrah." He confronted him directly, and 'Ali was a Companion, a follower of 'Uthman, and had pledged allegiance to him. Did 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) rule against this Companion, or punish this Companion by expelling him? Not because he had opposed him, but because he had confronted him by accusing him of being wrong regarding performing 'Umrah in the months of Hajj and combining Hajj and 'Umrah. So I say, "Here I am, responding to Allah with Hajj and 'Umrah." He did not expel him, because this expulsion is very serious; it resembles the one who leaves the community and dies the death of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. This is among the ill effects of building a political system for certain parties, as it resembles the major political system. They establish rulings upon it as if they were rulings of the major political system and the major caliphate. They make the pledge of allegiance obligatory, then they make fulfilling it obligatory, and then they make it obligatory to expel anyone who does not fulfill any of it. This is an innovation in religion for which Allah has not sent down any authority. And praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.