We have been informed by some of them that you say, "The Salaf exerted independent legal reasoning in the branches, while we exert it in the principles," and you gave as an example that you say, "Allah has eyes." What is the truth of that?

The questioner : Some questioners ask. The first says: "We have been informed by some of them that you say, 'The Salaf exerted independent legal reasoning in the branches, while we exert it in the principles,' and you gave as an example that you say, 'Allah has eyes.' What is the truth of that?" And the other says: "How do you call for the abandonment of following a specific school of jurisprudence, while your students follow you in imitation and say regarding the Companions, 'They were men, and we are men'?"

The Shaykh : Glory be to You, this is a great slander. First of all, we do not claim to exert independent legal reasoning; rather, we claim to follow. And if we do exert independent legal reasoning, we do so only in matters in which those who came before us did not exert it. The scholars of the Muslim community, through their sincerity in their knowledge and in their calling their community to act in accordance with the Book and the Sunnah, did not leave a statement for a speaker who comes after them. From our guidance and our creed, what we say on various occasions—and perhaps this was said recently or before that—we say: if two statements from Muslim scholars come regarding a single issue, we say it is not permissible for anyone to introduce a third statement; rather, he must choose, if he is a person of knowledge and choice, one of these two statements. And if we assume there are three statements, he must choose one of these three statements, and it is not permissible for him to introduce a fourth. So how can we say we exert independent legal reasoning in the principles while they exerted it in the branches? They exerted it, may Allah reward them well, in the principles and in the branches, leaving no room for anyone to exert independent legal reasoning in the principles and branches in a way that the Muslim community would be in need of in every time and place. However, they commanded those 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 imitation. As we said recently, do not make following a specific imam a religion for you; rather, follow each of them in what he got right, in accordance with the Book and the Sunnah. And as I said just now, if we exert independent legal reasoning with some of our brothers among the scholars, we only do so 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 ruling from the Shari'ah that did not exist before: filling cavities in teeth and in decayed teeth. This is a known technique in medicine. Therefore, it has happened now that a person, especially when he grows old and ages, has his teeth decay, and they must be filled. The following question arose: Is it permissible to fill a tooth? Some scholars who follow in imitation gave an answer with strangeness, as you will hear, which is that 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 the full ritual bath is obligatory according to this person—and this is the view we prefer, that rinsing the mouth in the full ritual bath is obligatory. So if the tooth is filled, 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 a matter? We do not find any mention of this issue in the books of the jurists of all the schools of jurisprudence, because it was not known to them. It is like the prayer on an airplane, as we discussed recently, and we mentioned to you how some of those who follow scholars without knowing their evidence issued a ruling, while warning against independent legal reasoning, yet he issued a ruling and exercised independent legal reasoning on the permissibility of praying on an airplane, without having any precedent from the imams he follows. Similarly, we are now bringing a new example: who is the one who gives the answer that corresponds to the Book and the Sunnah? Is it the one who follows the books and searches for the exact issue in the fiqh books that contain thousands of branches, such that the most knowledgeable of people cannot encompass them all with knowledge? I am now conveying to you an example that supports what I am currently addressing: Some of the muftis 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 a man who owns refrigerators for storing fruits and meats. One day, an Armenian man, that is, a Christian, for there are Armenians spread throughout Syria, a Christian, offered this Muslim a high fee if he would store pork in his refrigerators. And you know that the Muslim who is zealous for his religion hardly hears the name of the pig without the hair on his head standing up. So when he heard this offer, his heart was repelled by it, but his soul was afraid of it, yet he hesitated between greed and the fear of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). He said, "I must ask the mufti so that I may be certain of my affair and my religion." He went to the mufti in his office and told him the story. He said to him, "Go, write your question, and submit it to us, and we will give you the answer." He submitted the question to him later. He said to him, "Come back to us after a week." He returned to the great mufti after a week and asked what the answer was. And so it went for three weeks, as he kept going back and forth to the great mufti to obtain the answer: is it permissible for a Muslim to store pork for a Christian? In the last week, the third one, he entered, the door was knocked on, "Peace be upon you," "And upon you be peace." The mufti greeted him with joy and happiness. He said, "I have obtained the answer for you. Look at this great, immense independent legal reasoning! After three weeks, the mufti, following such-and-such a school of jurisprudence, was able to obtain the answer to such an easy, lenient matter. Knowing, as you know, that the mufti has employees under his command, and he tasks each of them to review one or two books, I do not know, and he gave him the answer and sealed it for him. As soon as the man left the room to the courtyard, he began to read the answer from beginning to end. He did not understand whether it was forbidden or lawful. He re-read it again and again and did not understand anything. He had a car driver, so he told him the story and said, "O Shaykh, read this fatwa for me. I did not understand anything from it, and I asked whether it is permissible or not." He read it, and his position was the same as the man's. He said, "I also did not understand. In some opinions it is permissible, and in some opinions it is not permissible. In some opinions... it is lawful, and in some opinions... it is forbidden, and so on." Finally, he said to him, "Come, I will direct you to a person. He is not a mufti; he is a watchman, and I am the one, meaning because I am, praise be to Allah, a watchman, and I have never held a job in this world." The two of them came together, presented the fatwa to me, and told me the story. I was amazed at what was in the fatwa, because the mufti did not exercise independent legal reasoning; rather, he followed the books he relies on for issuing fatwas. He says, for example, "It is stated 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 to do so? Such-and-such an imam, one of the imams of the school, said it is permissible and his fee is lawful. And such-and-such an imam said it is not permissible and his fee is not lawful." Another example: A man is hired by a dhimmi to transport wine on his donkey. Is it permissible, and is his fee lawful? There are contradictory, conflicting opinions. In conclusion, the great mufti says, "From what has preceded, the answer is clear." And I do not think any of you understands the answer, because the answer is based on contradictory opinions. And he has the right to do so, because it is customary for him not to issue a fatwa contrary to the books before him, first, and because it is not permissible for him to exercise independent legal reasoning, second. Therefore, he transmitted these transmissions and performed his duty. Even if he had not answered his questioner but merely brought the two contradictory opinions, this reminds me of a joke that may be fictional but is related by the thread of documentation to this real story. They claim that one of the muftis in the old days was about to travel. He thought about who would replace him in his position in issuing fatwas. He said to his father, "O Father, I am now traveling, so replace me after me." He said, "How can I, when I am not good at knowledge?" He said, "I will direct you to a method by which you can deal with questioners, regardless 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 Father, there are two opinions in the matter.' This one, for example, asks if the divorce took place or not. There are two opinions in the matter: permissible or not permissible. And so was the state of this father who replaced his son after him; he would say in every matter, 'There are two opinions in the matter.' And as it is said in some athar (reports from a Companion or successor), and some people think it is a hadith traced to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is a fabricated hadith: 'Whoever follows a scholar will meet Allah safe.' So you mention that there are two opinions in the matter, and the matter is ended."
Notice this routine, clichéd, blameworthy, printed answer that does not change from this agent to his son. Notice that one of the intelligent people said to him one day, wanting such an answer, "O Master Shaykh, I ask you a question." He said, "Go ahead." He said, "Is there doubt in Allah?" He said, "There are two opinions in the matter..." This is the knowledge practiced by those who do not adopt this Salafi methodology. We return to the filling of the tooth. That scholar was unable to permit the man who had a tooth extracted to have it filled by the doctor, because he would remain in a state of major ritual impurity for his entire life, and consequently would have no prayer. And I am not speaking of fiction; a story happened to us in Damascus, Syria. A 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, "First, I cannot do that because I spent a lot of money. Second, there is someone who issued a fatwa of permissibility for me. Third, there is hardship."
Intermediaries entered between the father and the son. Finally, his father was convinced that he would relinquish his opinion on one condition: that a fatwa be brought to him from the great mufti. And this mufti is not the previous mufti whose story I mentioned, who did not answer with permissibility or prohibition regarding the fee for storing pork.
The intermediaries of good went to the mufti and told him the story. They said, "Is it permissible to fill a tooth?" The mufti said, "Yes, it is permissible." The questioner said, "But the story is that one of the fathers, who is a man of knowledge, did such-and-such with his son, so we want a proof to convince him of that. What is the evidence?" He said, "The evidence for us in the 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 relation to the authentic Sunnah."
The Grand Mufti said that filling a tooth is permissible by analogy to filling a crack in the foot. He said that in the books of jurisprudence, it is stated that if the feet crack during the cold winter days, especially for farmers whose heels become hardened and crack, sometimes bleeding, the scholars of old ruled 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, permitted it, but he permitted it by the method of analogizing filling a tooth to filling a foot. The father was not satisfied with this argument conveyed to him by the Mufti through the intermediary; rather, he requested an official fatwa to keep with him in his shroud, to serve as his proof between him and his Lord. Now, I am satisfied with my son regarding 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 great cause for wonder—that we cannot give an official fatwa because we do not find a text permitting the filling of a tooth; rather, I said this based on my opinion. So the intermediary returned empty-handed, as the saying goes. Then it was my turn, at that time I was a young man of about twenty-five or thirty years of age. I went to the Mufti and summarized for him what had occurred between him and the intermediary. He agreed. We said, the father is not convinced, so we hope you will give us a paper. He said, “O Shaykh, I cannot.” I said to him, “Do you not have evidence?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Write down the evidence you have.” He said, “I cannot.” So I also returned empty-handed. This is from the Grand Mufti in Syria, and that one is likewise. Now listen to the answer from the young man. As for the first case, when the two men, the merchant who owns the refrigerators and his driver, came to me and I read the fatwa, I said, “You have the right; no one can take a decisive answer from him. But listen, my brother, even if you are not a scholar, you are an Arab Syrian. If I tell you that Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, said: Do you need me to explain to you this verse and that it forbids cooperation in sin and aggression?” He said, “No, by Allah, I am not in need of that.” I said to him, “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 wage lawful.” Then I mentioned to him the hadith: “May Allah curse ten people in regard to intoxicants,” and “May Allah curse the one who eats riba (usury or interest), the one who feeds it, the one who writes it, and the two witnesses.” These two hadiths explain that noble verse: He said to me, “May Allah reward you with good; I do not need more than that.” He left feeling reassured, and that Armenian Christian also returned empty-handed.
As for the tooth, a discussion took place between me and some of them, but we did not reach a point of debating the Mufti, because you know that Muftis cannot be debated. I said to one of those who is zealous for forbidding the filling of a tooth, “There is a hadith and a jurisprudential branch. 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 the tip of his nose was injured in the Battle of al-Kalab—a battle that took place in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance—and the tip of his nose was torn off. So he made a nose from wasq (silver). 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 rust. So when he placed this borrowed nose of silver, due to its contact with the nasal moisture, rust accumulated on it and his nose became foul-smelling. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saw him with the rust and ordered him, may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, to make a nose of gold.
We said to that Shaykh, “O Shaykh, which is more in need of making a nose tip of gold: the one with the nose or the one with the tooth? The one with the tooth, as everyone knows, whether he is a doctor or a patient, all of them know that the one who is afflicted in his teeth is in greater need of having them filled than placing a nose tip, because this nose tip only restores the perfection of the appearance, whereas filling the teeth restores the digestion of food, upon which the health of the bodies depends. If the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), who forbade gold for men, granted a dispensation for this man to make a nose of gold to restore the creation of Allah to what is closest to beauty and perfection, then it is all the more permissible for a man whose teeth have been worn out to fill them with gold.” He said to me, while arguing with 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, ‘It is not in the hadith that this nose was fixed.’ He says this nose might be like a set of dentures; when a person eats or performs wudu' (the ablution for prayer), he removes them and washes them, then puts them back on. It is possible that this nose works in this way, so it can be placed after being washed.” I said, “No, if that were the case, his first nose, which was of wasq (silver), would not have become foul-smelling. If he had washed it every time he performed wudu' (the ablution for prayer), the rust and dirt would not have accumulated on his nose. This is evidence from the Sunnah, and evidence from the sayings of the scholars of knowledge whom he imitates. 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 is.”
It came in the texts of the Hanafi books; they said, “And it is permissible to bind the teeth with wire. The tooth that moves, and when it falls out, it is permissible to bind it with wire.” So I said to that Shaykh who is extreme in his adherence to the school of jurisprudence, “This binding will take from the place of the bound teeth. One is the sick, moving tooth, and the other is the solid, fixed tooth. When one is tied to the other, this wire will take from each of the two teeth on one side, preventing water from reaching between the wire and the bone of the tooth. And they say that if a place the size of the head of a needle remains in the mouth and water does not reach it, the washing is invalid. Here, it is not the head of a needle, but the heads of needles that prevent water from reaching them. If this is permissible, then what is like it and more than it is permissible, because the operative cause is the same: the non-arrival of water. He was not convinced, and I was not convinced. This is 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, that they walk with us as much as they can in everything that is established in the Book and the Sunnah, and not say, as that ignorant Mufti said in the issue, “There are two opinions in the matter, and whoever imitates a scholar meets Allah in safety.” This is what Allah has made easy for me to answer the question.