Continuation of the discussion on the correct understanding of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : I also want to mention something else regarding the understanding of Sahih Muslim 1017a. Whoever claims that something that occurred after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is good must provide evidence. I am now giving you a clear, well-known example that we all know: the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) conquered the town of Khaybar by force and made a treaty with the Jews that they would remain there and work the land, its date palms, and ... and that the proceeds from this would be half for the Messenger (peace be upon him) and half for the Jews. Among the conditions he (peace and blessings be upon him) imposed on them in this treaty with the Jews, he said to them: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) passed away while the Jews were still in Khaybar, and they were still plotting against him (peace be upon him) and attempting to kill him, even by poisoning the fat, as it is said, and as came in the story of the Jewish woman who presented a sheep's leg to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). A Companion or two died from eating it, but the Messenger (peace be upon him) spat it out, yet the pain did not leave ... until he felt its effect in the illness of his death (peace be upon him).
The Jews remained in Khaybar until after the death of the Messenger, during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and part of the caliphate of 'Umar. Then 'Umar decided to expel them from Khaybar, so he expelled them and gave them notice before expelling them. Now we say, and this is a great branch of jurisprudence: Is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab's expulsion of the Jews a religious innovation, or is it a good practice, or is it a bad practice? The answer is that this incident, first of all, has no relation to the "good religious innovation" in the terminology of the later scholars, but it has a relation to the "good practice" in the terminology of the Master of the Messengers, whose saying you heard in the previous hadith. I said earlier, inquiring, that we have another way to object to the innovators who praise some innovations by citing this hadith. We say to them that rationalizing good and evil is not the methodology of the people of the Sunnah; rather, we know good and evil by the Shari'ah. If someone says, "This is a good matter," we say to him, "Bring the evidence."
Now we have brought up a matter that occurred after the Messenger (peace be upon him), and there is absolutely no doubt about that. Similarly, 'Umar's expulsion of the Jews from Khaybar: is this an innovation in the sense of something newly invented, or is it a good practice? There is no doubt in the answer that it is a good practice. How do we know that this is a good practice? From what we mentioned earlier: when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made a treaty with the Jews on the terms previously explained, he said to them: We Muslims. Then 'Umar came and saw the public benefit in expelling them, so he expelled them, thereby executing the will that the Messenger (peace be upon him) mentioned in one of the conditions he imposed on them. So 'Umar did not innovate anything in Islam here.
He who sets a good precedent in Islam
من سن في الإسلام سنة حسنةWe will expel you from it whenever we wish
نقركم فيها ما نشاءThe Jews remained in Khaybar until after the death of the Messenger, during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and part of the caliphate of 'Umar. Then 'Umar decided to expel them from Khaybar, so he expelled them and gave them notice before expelling them. Now we say, and this is a great branch of jurisprudence: Is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab's expulsion of the Jews a religious innovation, or is it a good practice, or is it a bad practice? The answer is that this incident, first of all, has no relation to the "good religious innovation" in the terminology of the later scholars, but it has a relation to the "good practice" in the terminology of the Master of the Messengers, whose saying you heard in the previous hadith. I said earlier, inquiring, that we have another way to object to the innovators who praise some innovations by citing this hadith. We say to them that rationalizing good and evil is not the methodology of the people of the Sunnah; rather, we know good and evil by the Shari'ah. If someone says, "This is a good matter," we say to him, "Bring the evidence."
Now we have brought up a matter that occurred after the Messenger (peace be upon him), and there is absolutely no doubt about that. Similarly, 'Umar's expulsion of the Jews from Khaybar: is this an innovation in the sense of something newly invented, or is it a good practice? There is no doubt in the answer that it is a good practice. How do we know that this is a good practice? From what we mentioned earlier: when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made a treaty with the Jews on the terms previously explained, he said to them: