The Shaykh’s remarks on the methodology of the Salafi call to Islam, on the occasion of his reading an article in the Kuwaiti magazine al-Mujtama' and commenting on the author’s statement before we return
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Like the previous research on the methodology of the Salafi call to Islam in a research session this evening, on the occasion that I came across an article in the magazine al-Mujtama', which is published in Kuwait and is an Islamic magazine, so that you may know the danger, or rather the greatness, of our holding fast to the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet, and to the methodology of our righteous predecessors. And that if the Muslims neglect this methodology, they will go astray from the straight path. We gave you an example from the Islamic beliefs related to the Noble Qur'an, which is the first foundation, the first source, and the first reference for the Islamic Shari'ah, on the basis that it is the speech of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), and not the speech of humans, nor the speech of anyone other than humans. We gave an example of the extent of ... in understanding the Book and the Sunnah regarding the methodology of the righteous predecessors in the Noble Qur'an, considering it to be the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And how did it come to pass that some Islamic sects stripped this Noble Qur'an of being the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic)? Some of them explicitly stated that it is not the speech of Allah, but rather a created thing. And some agreed with this claim implicitly, but did not state it explicitly; they denied that Allah has audible speech, and described it as internal speech. And describing speech in this way is denial of the divine speech, one of whose attributes is that it is heard by those to whom Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) addresses it, whether they are righteous or wicked.
I do not, of course, want to repeat what has passed, but I wanted, on the occasion of my reading this magazine, to present to you an example of the reality of our Islamic life today. The author of this article is dealing with a movement in Kuwait, an Islamic movement that demands—and this movement is not unique to other Islamic countries, for all Islamic countries demand that their rulers return their laws to conformity with the Islamic Shari'ah. Among these laws are the Personal Status laws. It appears that many magazines and newspapers are dealing with such laws and demanding that the state there return this law to what conforms to Islam, namely the Book and the Sunnah. So among the wonders and curiosities is that some of the enthusiasts for Islam stand between the state and the realization of this Islamic demand, which is returning the Personal Status law to the Book and the Sunnah. He relies on a basis that is correct in itself, but it is not evidence that supports his demand. It is, as it was said long ago, "a word of truth intended to be used for falsehood".
What is this truth that he relies on? He says, "Islam is a whole that cannot be divided, and it is obligatory for the Muslims to adopt Islam as a whole that cannot be divided". This call is correct, and it is not permissible for any Muslim to doubt it. But here is something that must be noted, which is that there is an intellectual adoption, or an intellectual embrace, and there is a practical adoption. What is not permissible to hesitate about, and what must be adopted in its entirety, is the intellectual adoption. And of course, it is not permissible for us to believe in some of the Book and disbelieve in some of it.
As for the practical aspect, regarding the religious obligations related to every Muslim who is accountable, he performs what he is able to, and Allah does not burden a soul except with what it can bear. Likewise, the community, for the community, as is well known, is nothing but a group of individuals. Just as every individual is obligated to do what he is able to, so the community is obligated to do what it is able to. If we know this fact, which is a self-evident fact with no doubt in it, then it becomes clear to you that this author has confused thought with action, which should correspond to thought. He is as if he is seeking an Islamic society in which Islam is applied in its entirety, where no part of it, whether large or small, can lag behind in application. And this is, of course, an impossible thing to achieve, especially for the later Muslims. He is now explicitly saying that before we return the Personal Status law to conform to the Book and the Sunnah, so that we remove from it what contradicts Islam and put in it what Islam commands, before all of this, we must reform the society. We must reform this society and prepare it to accept these rulings and these laws. This is beautiful speech in reality, and this preparation is what we are calling for, before focusing on things that we have no way to reach, not because if we were able to do it we would not do it. And this is a very big difference between what we are calling people to, which is to act on what we are able to, and resuming Islamic life. And there is no doubt that this will be step by step, and to the extent that the individual or the community is able. Meaning, if Islam consists of rulings that number one hundred, and we are now living a practical life of ten of them, there is no harm in adding one, then a second, then a third, until we have ... and so on. Whereas waiting until the community resumes its complete Islamic life among its members, and leaving the ruling to proceed in contradiction to the Book and the Sunnah, while we are able to amend and change this ruling without any hardship or effort, as is now clear from this movement taking place in Kuwait.
So, being content with these laws on the grounds that the society is not a complete Islamic society, this means that the Islamic society will remain incomplete, because there is no doubt that the efforts of individuals in reform are less than the efforts of governments. And it was said long ago, or rather, it is more accurate to say it was narrated from Uthman that he said, "Indeed, Allah restrains by the authority what He does not restrain by the Qur'an". If the authority agrees to change a law in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah, why do we refuse and stand between this reform and its realization, on the grounds that our Islamic reality does not accept this reform? This is a very strange matter!
Years ago, it was known in the Personal Status law that if a Muslim divorces his wife three times in one session with one phrase, his wife becomes divorced from him with a major final divorce. That is, as Allah the Exalted said,[Al-Baqarah 2:230]. Then some of those engaged in Islamic jurisprudence adopted this opinion, or this ruling, as being the opinion of the four schools of jurisprudence, which the masses of Muslims are keen to preserve the issues of, and they do not allow anyone to deviate from them, no matter what path they find to such deviation. Nevertheless, when these people saw the bad effect of adopting this opinion, which is that divorce with the phrase of three is three divorces, they returned and adopted an opinion that until recently was an anomalous and rejected opinion, namely the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), who returned in this issue, about eight centuries ago, to the Sunnah. He said that divorce with the phrase of three is only one divorce. So some jurists adopted this and introduced this correct Islamic ruling into the Personal Status law. And there is, without doubt—I am not a lawyer and I have not studied the Personal Status law—but I know for certain that there are many rulings similar to this ruling that contradict the Islamic Shari'ah, whether the Book, the Sunnah, or both together.
So what harm did the Islamic society suffer, and it has not advanced at all since recently, when this ruling was changed to conform to the Sunnah? What harm did that do to anything? The society did not become agitated, nor did the society reject it, as the author of this article indicates. We are now summarizing for you words from the article ... the article is long ... two pages, so that you may get the correct idea from the speech itself.
I do not, of course, want to repeat what has passed, but I wanted, on the occasion of my reading this magazine, to present to you an example of the reality of our Islamic life today. The author of this article is dealing with a movement in Kuwait, an Islamic movement that demands—and this movement is not unique to other Islamic countries, for all Islamic countries demand that their rulers return their laws to conformity with the Islamic Shari'ah. Among these laws are the Personal Status laws. It appears that many magazines and newspapers are dealing with such laws and demanding that the state there return this law to what conforms to Islam, namely the Book and the Sunnah. So among the wonders and curiosities is that some of the enthusiasts for Islam stand between the state and the realization of this Islamic demand, which is returning the Personal Status law to the Book and the Sunnah. He relies on a basis that is correct in itself, but it is not evidence that supports his demand. It is, as it was said long ago, "a word of truth intended to be used for falsehood".
What is this truth that he relies on? He says, "Islam is a whole that cannot be divided, and it is obligatory for the Muslims to adopt Islam as a whole that cannot be divided". This call is correct, and it is not permissible for any Muslim to doubt it. But here is something that must be noted, which is that there is an intellectual adoption, or an intellectual embrace, and there is a practical adoption. What is not permissible to hesitate about, and what must be adopted in its entirety, is the intellectual adoption. And of course, it is not permissible for us to believe in some of the Book and disbelieve in some of it.
As for the practical aspect, regarding the religious obligations related to every Muslim who is accountable, he performs what he is able to, and Allah does not burden a soul except with what it can bear. Likewise, the community, for the community, as is well known, is nothing but a group of individuals. Just as every individual is obligated to do what he is able to, so the community is obligated to do what it is able to. If we know this fact, which is a self-evident fact with no doubt in it, then it becomes clear to you that this author has confused thought with action, which should correspond to thought. He is as if he is seeking an Islamic society in which Islam is applied in its entirety, where no part of it, whether large or small, can lag behind in application. And this is, of course, an impossible thing to achieve, especially for the later Muslims. He is now explicitly saying that before we return the Personal Status law to conform to the Book and the Sunnah, so that we remove from it what contradicts Islam and put in it what Islam commands, before all of this, we must reform the society. We must reform this society and prepare it to accept these rulings and these laws. This is beautiful speech in reality, and this preparation is what we are calling for, before focusing on things that we have no way to reach, not because if we were able to do it we would not do it. And this is a very big difference between what we are calling people to, which is to act on what we are able to, and resuming Islamic life. And there is no doubt that this will be step by step, and to the extent that the individual or the community is able. Meaning, if Islam consists of rulings that number one hundred, and we are now living a practical life of ten of them, there is no harm in adding one, then a second, then a third, until we have ... and so on. Whereas waiting until the community resumes its complete Islamic life among its members, and leaving the ruling to proceed in contradiction to the Book and the Sunnah, while we are able to amend and change this ruling without any hardship or effort, as is now clear from this movement taking place in Kuwait.
So, being content with these laws on the grounds that the society is not a complete Islamic society, this means that the Islamic society will remain incomplete, because there is no doubt that the efforts of individuals in reform are less than the efforts of governments. And it was said long ago, or rather, it is more accurate to say it was narrated from Uthman that he said, "Indeed, Allah restrains by the authority what He does not restrain by the Qur'an". If the authority agrees to change a law in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah, why do we refuse and stand between this reform and its realization, on the grounds that our Islamic reality does not accept this reform? This is a very strange matter!
Years ago, it was known in the Personal Status law that if a Muslim divorces his wife three times in one session with one phrase, his wife becomes divorced from him with a major final divorce. That is, as Allah the Exalted said,
she is not lawful to him afterward until [after] she marries a husband other than him
فلا تحل له من بعد حتى تنكح زوجا غيرهSo what harm did the Islamic society suffer, and it has not advanced at all since recently, when this ruling was changed to conform to the Sunnah? What harm did that do to anything? The society did not become agitated, nor did the society reject it, as the author of this article indicates. We are now summarizing for you words from the article ... the article is long ... two pages, so that you may get the correct idea from the speech itself.