That some Islamic groups that adopt the methodology of the Salaf, and some of their members have erred and fallen into disagreement

The questioner: That some Islamic groups that adopt the methodology of the Salaf, some of their members may have erred and fallen into a jurisprudential disagreement or in prioritizing the call, and after that he was expelled for his disagreement with their emir or leader; does this expulsion distance him from his foundation in his methodology?

The Shaykh: As for what I am hearing now in this question about a Muslim being expelled from the group and the Salafi group merely because he erred in one issue or another; I do not see this except as a contagion from other parties. This expulsion is part of the system of some Islamic parties that do not adopt the Salafi methodology in jurisprudence and understanding of Islam, but rather it is a party dominated by what dominates other parties, namely clustering and gathering on the basis of a mini-state; whoever deviates from the obedience of its leader is warned first, second, and third, perhaps then a ruling is made to expel him. Such a thing is not permissible for a group that truly belongs to the Book of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and to the methodology of the righteous Salaf. We all know that our righteous Salaf, and at their head the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), used to differ in some issues, and such a difference was not initially a cause for creating any division among them, unlike the difference of the Khalaf, who became, because of their difference, many schools and paths; until many of them no longer saw the permissibility of praying behind one who differed from them in their school, but that became a jurisprudential branch they specified in their books, saying in their manuals—or in the manuals of this jurisprudence: "And it is not permissible to pray behind one who opposes the school"!! It is not permissible to pray behind one who opposes the school!! This text exists in the Hanafi school, and in the Shafi'i school, and in the commentary you see—or the marginal notes as they call it—you see the amazing details that the early Salaf did not know in the first place, and then the Salafis do not recognize them in the second place; because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) made them independent of falling into such things due to the knowledge I referred to earlier that the Companions used to differ in some issues, and yet they used to pray behind one imam, whereas with the Khalaf we find their traces in their mihrabs until today, so we find in the Great Mosque four mihrabs; the first mihrab is for the Hanbalis, the second is for the Shafi'is, the third—and it is in the middle—is for the Hanafis, and the last to the east is the mihrab for the Malikis; because they were the fewest in number in those lands, so the people used to go to the Hanafi imam in the Great Mosque until recently; until the era of the French colonization of the Syrian lands, that is a legacy the people in Syria inherited from the Ottoman era; because the Ottomans were all Hanafis, so when France occupied Syria, then they installed a president who is called "Taj al-Din al-Husayni," who is from the descendants of "Badr al-Din al-Husayni," who they used to say in his time: "He is the hadith scholar of the Syrian lands," and I am not now in this context, the important thing is that thisThe Shaykh : Taj al-Din ibn Badr al-Din was the president, and on his head was a white turban on a "tarboosh"; because that was how he lived, and that was of course part of the French policy to establish calm in the lands they colonized, so they saw that they should install a president for the Muslims who was a shaykh with a turban. This man was a Shafi'i, so he changed the system of prayer, making the Shafi'i imam pray before the Hanafi imam. This is one of the effects of school fanaticism, and the research here is long-tailed, and it is sufficient for me now to make a quick reference.
As for our righteous Salaf, they were one hand and one block, praying behind one imam, no matter if this imam was wrong in his opinion. There was among them one who said more than the disagreement that still exists between the Hanafis and Shafi'is, for example. The Hanafi holds that if blood exits from any part of the body by the amount of a thousand, exceeding the amount of a thousand, then his wudu' is invalidated, whereas the Shafi'is hold that it does not invalidate the wudu'. But there was among the Salaf one who held what the majority of the Companions held and upon which the consensus of the Ummah later agreed, that if a man has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate, he does not have to perform ghusl. Some of the great Companions held this; contrary to the majority of the Companions, who said what the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: , this hadith was abrogating his (peace be upon him) saying: , so some of the Companions reached them this second hadith: ; so he would issue a fatwa that the man who has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate, he only has to perform wudu'—not ghusl—, as for ghusl, it is not obligatory upon him. But the Companions had reached them the other hadith; and it is his (peace be upon him) saying: —his (peace be upon him) saying: —, and yet you would see these praying behind that one who said he does not have to perform ghusl. This resembles many of the differences existing between the schools until today, but we see the great difference between the Salafi disagreement and the Khalafi disagreement. The Salafi disagreement was ijtihad and it was intellectual, but it was not physical, it did not divide them, and therefore they used to pray behind one imam.
Therefore, it came in the books of sound creeds that among the beliefs of the Salaf that the Khalaf inherited is praying behind every righteous and every open sinner, just as it is obligatory to pray over every righteous and every open sinner. So we now say that some of the Companions used to oppose the Caliph in his opinion and in his ijtihad, and yet was he expelled from the group of Muslims? Far be it from Allah, Lord of the Worlds. An example of this is:
'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to exercise ijtihad in some issues; he would be correct in most of them, and err in the fewest of them. From this few, he forbade the Muslims from combining 'Umrah and Hajj, and ordered them to perform Hajj alone; even though the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had approved combining or joining Hajj and 'Umrah in two ways. The first way is qiran, but he (peace be upon him) only approved it for one who had brought the sacrificial animal from the non-sacred area, as for one who did not bring the sacrificial animal from the non-sacred area; he ordered him to break the contract. This is a type of tamattu'; that he combines Hajj and 'Umrah with bringing the sacrificial animal, this is tamattu', and the other tamattu'—and the more comprehensive in meaning and lifting of hardship—is performing 'Umrah before Hajj. And this type is what the Messenger (peace be upon him) ended with in conveying to the people in the Farewell Pilgrimage, as is known from his (peace be upon him) famous saying: ; Jabir said: "So the people became in a state of ihram release, the incense burners blazed, and they came to the women." This is what the Messenger (peace be upon him) said in the Farewell Pilgrimage, which is the only pilgrimage the Messenger (peace be upon him) performed after the revelation of the revelation to him, and he stated this clear and explicit ruling; and yet 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) held, out of his eagerness to increase the number of pilgrims and multiply the journeys to the Sacred House of Allah; he held the separation between 'Umrah and Hajj with two journeys, so that the people's visit to the mosque would be repeated, and in that—without doubt—there is a religious benefit for the Islamic Ummah at that time.
I am not concerned right now with saying whether this ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) of his is correct or incorrect, such as his ijtihad in making the divorce pronounced with the phrase "three" in one session count as three. Is this a correct Shari'ah policy or not? That is not what concerns us; because Shari'ah policy may be temporary and immediate; either in one time and one place, or in one time and other places, and then this policy ceases when the cause for it ceases. This is not what concerns me, but what concerns me is whether it is valid to take 'Umar's policy in both of these matters as a Shari'ah that Muslims continue to follow until the Day of Resurrection, and the Shari'ah is reversed; so it is said that divorce with the phrase "three" is one divorce; while knowing that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was raised to the highest companion, and this divorce is considered one divorce?
A Muslim cannot say this ruling that contradicts the Shari'ah. It is sufficient for him to say that it was an ijtihad of 'Umar in which he was correct in his time, but as for after that; it is not permissible to resort to it.
The point is that he prohibited tamattu' (combining 'Umrah and Hajj with a break between them) from 'Umrah to Hajj; while it is the explicit Qur'an: to the end of the verse. Then 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) died upon this policy that he saw, even though a narration was reported from him that if religion were by desire, we would wish this narration to be authentic, for it says that 'Umar wished for three things: "That he had asked the Messenger of Allah about the kalalah (inheritance of those without direct heirs), and that he had retracted his statement regarding the triple divorce that it is three, and from prohibiting people from tamattu' from 'Umrah to Hajj." It is a weak narration that we hope is authentic in reality, but this is what we cannot be certain of; especially since 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) inherited this policy from his predecessor and the second caliph, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab.
It is reported in "Sahih Muslim" that 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) came to 'Uthman and it had reached him that he was prohibiting people from tamattu'; he said: "What is it to you and the people? You prohibit them from tamattu', and we did it in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family); Labbaik Allahumma bi 'Umrah (Here I am, O Allah, for 'Umrah)?" He confronted him directly, and he was the caliph, and he was a follower of him and had pledged allegiance to him; did 'Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) rule against this Companion or punish this Companion by expelling him - not because he differed with him! - but because he confronted him with his error in him, you prohibit people from performing 'Umrah in the months of Hajj, from combining Hajj and 'Umrah, so I say: Labbaik Allahumma bi Hajj wa 'Umrah (Here I am, O Allah, for Hajj and 'Umrah)? He did not expel him; because this expulsion is very dangerous, it resembles , and this is from the ill omen of adopting policy for some parties; because it resembles the major policy, and they arrange rulings upon it as if they are the rulings of the major policy and the major caliphate; they make the pledge of allegiance obligatory, then they arrange upon it the obligation of fulfilling it, then they arrange upon it the expulsion of whoever does not fulfill any of it. This is an innovation in religion for which Allah has not sent down any authority! And praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.