A discussion on the importance of returning to the Book and the Sunnah in matters of disagreement, while respecting scholars whose statements are refuted when they contradict the truth.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is permissible. The important thing is that I do not know the extent of your culture and knowledge.
The questioner : It is simple.
The Shaykh : Yes, whether we call it simple or not, but we have no choice but to speak within the limits of what we hear. Now, is this a problem, Professor, or is it not a problem?
The questioner : It is a problem.
The Shaykh : If it is a problem, does it have to be solved or not?
The questioner : We have to suffer from it in a...
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : You do not imagine how much we are suffering.
The Shaykh : You are being frank, and as you said: it is apparent that you and those like you have not reached the level of Zayd, Bakr, and 'Amr.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : By whose hand is the problem solved, young men?
You said that it is apparent that you and those like you have not reached the level of Zayd, Bakr, and 'Amr. By whose hand is the problem solved, young men, in your opinion?The questioner : By the hand of our scholars.
The Shaykh : Good. What do you think? This professor has presented a proposal for solving the problem. What do you think if we said: choose whom you wish from the scholars of knowledge, those whom you say, "I am not like them," because you also say, "I am not like you." So there are scholars in whose knowledge you trust. What do you think? Choose for yourself one, two, or three whom you first trust in their knowledge and secondly trust in their morals, because the truth is that knowledge without character is of no benefit, just as character without knowledge is of no benefit. Is that correct or not?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : What do you think of this proposal?
The questioner : Good.
The Shaykh : Do you pledge to do this?
The questioner : By Allah, I will try.
Another questioner: Before he pledges, we are ready at any time, in any place, and with whomever you wish.
The questioner : I want to try this attempt to settle the matter and unite the Muslims, not to settle it by establishing proof against one another in a process.The Shaykh : You have now gone beyond the goal. You are speaking about what is in hearts. We have left what is in hearts to the Knower of the Unseen.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Naturally, we say this is a problem. What is its solution? The solution is that the scholars in whose knowledge you trust gather. As for the intention being such and such, that is a given; that is called a foregone conclusion, as is not hidden from you. So the important thing now is to engage in ways to resolve the issue. And I am putting forward something to you, Professor, perhaps you are not aware of the matter, or you were aware of it at some point and then it slipped your mind. The scholars to whom you refer and whom you esteem, as you esteem others or more so, do they meet us in a common word, which is[An-Nisa 4:59]? Do you believe they are so?
The questioner : Yes, I believe so, I believe in all the scholars.
The Shaykh : No, allow me, this is a generalization from you; you rushed into it.
The questioner : I mean, this is my opinion. I trust in all our scholars, and I love them and revere them, and you are the first among them.
The Shaykh : My master, may Allah reward you with good. This is not our topic. This is called rhetorical speech. Our research is scientific, practical, and precise.
The questioner : I am not lying, my Shaykh.
Another questioner: No, he is not saying you are lying.
The questioner : You say it is rhetorical and poetic. I do not say that.
The Shaykh : I mean, you esteem the scholars, and we are among them. What does that have to do with the matter? We did not doubt you to the point that you say, "I esteem and I esteem."
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : But our problem now is that we do not know what the root of the cause is. And so I asked you: these scholars to whom you allude, that they meet on this common word, which is that if we disagree on something, we return to what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah said. Because I will tell you in advance: if you have in your mind a person who says, "I am a Hanafi, and it is not permissible for me to understand from here and here, or from Zayd or Bakr among the people directly," as they say in our region in the Levant, "call it unemployment," it is not possible for there to be a meeting, because it is not hidden from you that any research into anything, in any science, must have agreed-upon principles and rules. Is that correct or not? For example, when we argue with a Christian, we argue on the basis that he believes in the Creator, but he does not believe in our Book. But when we argue with a Muslim, we argue on the basis that he believes in our Book. But if he says, "What makes me understand the Qur'an, and what makes me understand the Sunnah, and the authentic and the weak, and the general and the specific, and the absolute and the restricted?" How do you reach an understanding with this person? You, before you say that the solution to the problem is gathering, which is the truth, think about these people whom you choose to gather, if they wish to gather. Are they with us on this fundamental issue, which I do not think anyone else would imagine that a Muslim scholar could disagree with us on, because the matter is[An-Nisa 4:59]? We and he are different, is this not the problem?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : What is the solution to the disagreement? Returning to the Book and the Sunnah. If returning to the Book and the Sunnah is not at all possible for him, because there is no one who understands the Book and the Sunnah, and you are now saying, "We have not reached this level." And I do not know what level you have reached or not, but I judge you by your own mouth. You say, "We have not reached this level." So, if the doctor or the distinguished scholar you want says, "We are... we are an immortal group," the problem is solved.
The questioner : He disagrees with you.
The Shaykh : I am not saying he disagrees with me. I am asking you, my master: do you know that this group calls to our call, calls to following the Book... The sound one, if he does not fast Ramadan, he cannot fast in other months, just as the prayer is fixed at its time. As for the fasting of a vow, originally our Lord did not obligate it on this one who vowed; rather, he obligated it on himself. This is a temporary obligation from himself, not from his Lord. Therefore, the one who vowed a vow of fasting and died, and his son knew that his father had a vow, he fasts on his behalf, just as Hajj is performed on behalf of the one who is unable. So the ruling for the one who left Hajj, which was obligatory upon him, is that there is no way for any of his children [to perform it on his behalf].
The questioner : It is simple.
The Shaykh : Yes, whether we call it simple or not, but we have no choice but to speak within the limits of what we hear. Now, is this a problem, Professor, or is it not a problem?
The questioner : It is a problem.
The Shaykh : If it is a problem, does it have to be solved or not?
The questioner : We have to suffer from it in a...
The Shaykh : Very good.
The questioner : You do not imagine how much we are suffering.
The Shaykh : You are being frank, and as you said: it is apparent that you and those like you have not reached the level of Zayd, Bakr, and 'Amr.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : By whose hand is the problem solved, young men?
You said that it is apparent that you and those like you have not reached the level of Zayd, Bakr, and 'Amr. By whose hand is the problem solved, young men, in your opinion?The questioner : By the hand of our scholars.
The Shaykh : Good. What do you think? This professor has presented a proposal for solving the problem. What do you think if we said: choose whom you wish from the scholars of knowledge, those whom you say, "I am not like them," because you also say, "I am not like you." So there are scholars in whose knowledge you trust. What do you think? Choose for yourself one, two, or three whom you first trust in their knowledge and secondly trust in their morals, because the truth is that knowledge without character is of no benefit, just as character without knowledge is of no benefit. Is that correct or not?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : What do you think of this proposal?
The questioner : Good.
The Shaykh : Do you pledge to do this?
The questioner : By Allah, I will try.
Another questioner: Before he pledges, we are ready at any time, in any place, and with whomever you wish.
The questioner : I want to try this attempt to settle the matter and unite the Muslims, not to settle it by establishing proof against one another in a process.The Shaykh : You have now gone beyond the goal. You are speaking about what is in hearts. We have left what is in hearts to the Knower of the Unseen.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Naturally, we say this is a problem. What is its solution? The solution is that the scholars in whose knowledge you trust gather. As for the intention being such and such, that is a given; that is called a foregone conclusion, as is not hidden from you. So the important thing now is to engage in ways to resolve the issue. And I am putting forward something to you, Professor, perhaps you are not aware of the matter, or you were aware of it at some point and then it slipped your mind. The scholars to whom you refer and whom you esteem, as you esteem others or more so, do they meet us in a common word, which is
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger
فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِThe questioner : Yes, I believe so, I believe in all the scholars.
The Shaykh : No, allow me, this is a generalization from you; you rushed into it.
The questioner : I mean, this is my opinion. I trust in all our scholars, and I love them and revere them, and you are the first among them.
The Shaykh : My master, may Allah reward you with good. This is not our topic. This is called rhetorical speech. Our research is scientific, practical, and precise.
The questioner : I am not lying, my Shaykh.
Another questioner: No, he is not saying you are lying.
The questioner : You say it is rhetorical and poetic. I do not say that.
The Shaykh : I mean, you esteem the scholars, and we are among them. What does that have to do with the matter? We did not doubt you to the point that you say, "I esteem and I esteem."
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : But our problem now is that we do not know what the root of the cause is. And so I asked you: these scholars to whom you allude, that they meet on this common word, which is that if we disagree on something, we return to what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah said. Because I will tell you in advance: if you have in your mind a person who says, "I am a Hanafi, and it is not permissible for me to understand from here and here, or from Zayd or Bakr among the people directly," as they say in our region in the Levant, "call it unemployment," it is not possible for there to be a meeting, because it is not hidden from you that any research into anything, in any science, must have agreed-upon principles and rules. Is that correct or not? For example, when we argue with a Christian, we argue on the basis that he believes in the Creator, but he does not believe in our Book. But when we argue with a Muslim, we argue on the basis that he believes in our Book. But if he says, "What makes me understand the Qur'an, and what makes me understand the Sunnah, and the authentic and the weak, and the general and the specific, and the absolute and the restricted?" How do you reach an understanding with this person? You, before you say that the solution to the problem is gathering, which is the truth, think about these people whom you choose to gather, if they wish to gather. Are they with us on this fundamental issue, which I do not think anyone else would imagine that a Muslim scholar could disagree with us on, because the matter is
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger
فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِThe questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : What is the solution to the disagreement? Returning to the Book and the Sunnah. If returning to the Book and the Sunnah is not at all possible for him, because there is no one who understands the Book and the Sunnah, and you are now saying, "We have not reached this level." And I do not know what level you have reached or not, but I judge you by your own mouth. You say, "We have not reached this level." So, if the doctor or the distinguished scholar you want says, "We are... we are an immortal group," the problem is solved.
The questioner : He disagrees with you.
The Shaykh : I am not saying he disagrees with me. I am asking you, my master: do you know that this group calls to our call, calls to following the Book... The sound one, if he does not fast Ramadan, he cannot fast in other months, just as the prayer is fixed at its time. As for the fasting of a vow, originally our Lord did not obligate it on this one who vowed; rather, he obligated it on himself. This is a temporary obligation from himself, not from his Lord. Therefore, the one who vowed a vow of fasting and died, and his son knew that his father had a vow, he fasts on his behalf, just as Hajj is performed on behalf of the one who is unable. So the ruling for the one who left Hajj, which was obligatory upon him, is that there is no way for any of his children [to perform it on his behalf].