In Sahih Muslim, from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, that a relative of 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal threw a pebble, so he forbade him and said
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The questioner mentioned the hadith of the prohibition by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) of throwing pebbles, stating that it does not kill game or wound the enemy, and the hadith of Ibn Mughaffal where his son threw a pebble, so he forbade him and said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade throwing pebbles and said such and such. Then the son returned and said: "Are you telling me that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade it, and then you go back to throwing pebbles? I will never speak to you again." The question is: Is it understood from this hadith that cutting off ties and boycotting are permissible, even though there are other hadiths forbidding them?
The Shaykh : This question should not have been asked, as if the questioner had not attended any of our previous lessons. He and those of his ilk should remember that boycotting is of two types. Boycotting a Muslim brother is of two types. The first type is boycotting one who encourages the self, or from the perspective of "disturbing the creation", where a person commits a wrong against another that does not warrant the severance of ties described in the second type, because he did not intend this wrong. Boycotting him in this case is not permissible in Islam. However, our Lord (Mighty and Majestic), out of mercy for His servants, allowed this boycotting for a period of three nights. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This type of boycotting is forbidden, except for the three nights. It is from the perspective of providing relief for this person who has heard something from his Muslim brother and has boycotted him. He may boycott him for one night, two nights, or three, and after that, this boycotting is not permissible for you; it is forbidden by the text of this hadith and others. As for the other type of boycotting, it is boycotting in the cause of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), boycotting for the sake of Allah, boycotting for His training, because a person may have deviated in an issue, a matter, or a word, and the sincere believing man sees that boycotting this person to discipline him is a necessity. Of this type was the boycotting by the noble Companion 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal of his son when the son said what?
The questioner : He forbade him from throwing pebbles.
The Shaykh : 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal narrated to his son that he had heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbidding throwing pebbles. Throwing pebbles is, for example, throwing stones at birds, in the Syrian terminology... for example, when this stone hits the bird, it strikes it with its force but does not wound it. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade this in this authentic hadith. The son of 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal did not stop, so he said to him: "Am I to narrate to you that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade throwing pebbles, and then you return to throwing pebbles?" So he boycotted him. This boycotting was not for the victory of the self, but for the victory of the Shari'ah and the sanctities of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This boycotting is permissible. Exactly of this nature is what 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both) narrated to one of his children regarding the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), to the effect of: "Allow the women to go out to the mosques at night". He said: "By Allah, we will not allow them." He had some truth in this, because from that time he saw the deviation of women from the clean, pure Islamic dress that the early women had. He wanted to say: Yes, it is as you say about the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but this ruling is not suitable for application now. That was his intention, even if there is a point of discussion regarding his intention. But there is a difference between this example and the previous one. In the previous example, he was forbidden from throwing pebbles, yet he was throwing them. Here, when he heard his father narrating from the Messenger the command to allow women to go out to the mosques at night, at a time of fitnah and darkness, especially in those days, how can we allow our women to go out when there are open sinners and wicked men who harass them? He said: "Allow them." He said: "By Allah, we will not allow them." He said: "I am telling you that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said so, and you say we will not allow them?" He said: "By Allah, I will never speak to you again," and he died without ever speaking to him again. This was boycotting for the sake of Allah and for the victory of the rulings of Allah and the sanctities of Allah. This type is permissible. Accordingly, the boycotting of the three who were left behind occurred, as is known in the story summarized in the Qur'an and detailed in the two Sahihs. This is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
Another questioner: A final question. If he boycotted him for three days and did not see him afterwards, can he go to his house?
The Shaykh : That would be better. If he did not intend to cut off the boycotting, there is no sin on him, but the better and best thing, as I said, is to go to his house.
The Shaykh : This question should not have been asked, as if the questioner had not attended any of our previous lessons. He and those of his ilk should remember that boycotting is of two types. Boycotting a Muslim brother is of two types. The first type is boycotting one who encourages the self, or from the perspective of "disturbing the creation", where a person commits a wrong against another that does not warrant the severance of ties described in the second type, because he did not intend this wrong. Boycotting him in this case is not permissible in Islam. However, our Lord (Mighty and Majestic), out of mercy for His servants, allowed this boycotting for a period of three nights. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
It is not permissible for a Muslim man to boycott his brother for more than three days. They meet, and this one turns away from that one, and that one from this one. The best of them is the one who initiates the greeting to his brother.
لا يحل لرجل مسلم أن يهجر أخاه فوق ثلاث يلتقيان فيعرض هذا عن هذا وهذا عن هذا وخيرهما الذي يبدأ أخاه بالسلامThe questioner : He forbade him from throwing pebbles.
The Shaykh : 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal narrated to his son that he had heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbidding throwing pebbles. Throwing pebbles is, for example, throwing stones at birds, in the Syrian terminology... for example, when this stone hits the bird, it strikes it with its force but does not wound it. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade this in this authentic hadith. The son of 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal did not stop, so he said to him: "Am I to narrate to you that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade throwing pebbles, and then you return to throwing pebbles?" So he boycotted him. This boycotting was not for the victory of the self, but for the victory of the Shari'ah and the sanctities of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This boycotting is permissible. Exactly of this nature is what 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both) narrated to one of his children regarding the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), to the effect of: "Allow the women to go out to the mosques at night". He said: "By Allah, we will not allow them." He had some truth in this, because from that time he saw the deviation of women from the clean, pure Islamic dress that the early women had. He wanted to say: Yes, it is as you say about the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but this ruling is not suitable for application now. That was his intention, even if there is a point of discussion regarding his intention. But there is a difference between this example and the previous one. In the previous example, he was forbidden from throwing pebbles, yet he was throwing them. Here, when he heard his father narrating from the Messenger the command to allow women to go out to the mosques at night, at a time of fitnah and darkness, especially in those days, how can we allow our women to go out when there are open sinners and wicked men who harass them? He said: "Allow them." He said: "By Allah, we will not allow them." He said: "I am telling you that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said so, and you say we will not allow them?" He said: "By Allah, I will never speak to you again," and he died without ever speaking to him again. This was boycotting for the sake of Allah and for the victory of the rulings of Allah and the sanctities of Allah. This type is permissible. Accordingly, the boycotting of the three who were left behind occurred, as is known in the story summarized in the Qur'an and detailed in the two Sahihs. This is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
Another questioner: A final question. If he boycotted him for three days and did not see him afterwards, can he go to his house?
The Shaykh : That would be better. If he did not intend to cut off the boycotting, there is no sin on him, but the better and best thing, as I said, is to go to his house.