Speaking about boycotting a Muslim.

The questioner : ... until the youth are in the picture... the hadith... is weak... regarding the topic of boycotting a Muslim, we had discussed it, my colleague and I, on the phone, and then we postponed the research on the topic. Of course, the hadiths reported regarding boycotting a Muslim are well known, and they are used as evidence for the right of a Muslim over another Muslim. We want the professor to speak to us on this topic... We are human beings.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that the topic of boycotting involves a precision similar to the precision in the topic of backbiting. The commonality between the two matters is that just as it is not permissible for a Muslim to boycott another Muslim, it is not permissible for a Muslim to backbite another Muslim. And just as forbidden backbiting has an exception in the Shari'ah, so too does boycotting have an exception in the Shari'ah. Boycotting a Muslim for no Shari'ah reason is permissible for only three days, and anything beyond that is forbidden. In the well-known hadith in the two Sahihs from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), he said: . In this hadith, there is a clarification of the prohibition of boycotting, along with a dispensation to boycott for these three days or three nights. This is, in reality, due to the weakness of the human being whom Allah (Mighty and Majestic) created and described in His saying: . Our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) showed leniency toward him by permitting him to relieve the anger in his heart toward a Muslim brother who has boycotted him. It is not permissible for him, or rather, it is permissible for him to boycott him for these three days, and then the matter ends. If he exceeds that, the boycott becomes forbidden by the text of this hadith, which began by saying: , meaning it is forbidden. As for the exception, as we indicated regarding the exception to forbidden backbiting, it is only when the motive for the boycott is to educate the boycotted person and turn him away from any Shari'ah violation he may be committing. If a Muslim boycotts him for this purpose, as is apparent, for the purpose of reforming this boycotted person, it is permissible; otherwise, it is not permissible, and the ruling reverts to the original principle, which is that it is forbidden after three days. It often happens among people that a Muslim boycotts his brother for material matters, not for the Shari'ah educational purpose for the boycotted person. The boycotting person imagines that in boycotting that Muslim brother, he is doing a good deed, when in reality he did not boycott him because that man is committing a sin or transgression that he persists in and is attached to, but rather out of quenching the anger in his heart. Therefore, the issue of a Muslim boycotting his Muslim brother—Shari'ah-compliant boycotting—is one of the most precise matters in which a Muslim must be most cautious so as not to get entangled in it and violate the aforementioned hadith that forbids boycotting, without knowing or realizing it.

The questioner : I mean, Professor, on the topic, it is the same as backbiting; the intention is what determines the permissibility or impermissibility.

The Shaykh : Yes, the intention alone, without doubt, is the criterion for all deeds, but what I wanted to draw attention to is that a person should be mindful of himself so that he does not boycott his brother for a purely worldly reason, imagining to himself that he is boycotting him with the intention of disciplining him. A person might, for example, lie and fabricate a lie, and then he boycotts him. This lying or fabrication is not of the kind that justifies the boycott. Rather, a person should advise him and remind him of the prohibition of what he did. Otherwise, if the door of boycotting a Muslim brother is opened simply because he committed a mistake, this means that Muslims must boycott one another, cut ties, ignore one another, and not be brothers as Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) described them. This is what I wanted to draw attention to.

The questioner : And then, religion is sincere advice.

The questioner : If the purpose of the discipline is not achieved, who decides that the discipline has taken place?

The Shaykh : If it becomes apparent from the boycotted man that he has repented and turned back, or at least apologized for what he did... is there nothing more for us?

The questioner : I mean, if the boycotting person persists despite the repentance of the boycotted person, what is the role of the other Muslims in this matter?

The Shaykh : After he repented.

The questioner : Yes, the man repented from his mistake, and the boycotting person is still boycotting him and is persistent. Is there a role for relatives, friends, and family?

The Shaykh : I understand from your question, and Allah knows best, that the role of the others is not for the boycotted person, but for the boycotting person. That is, does the situation reverse so that the boycotting person is boycotted?

The questioner : No, I mean... the boycotted person repented, turned back, and admitted his mistake, but the boycotting person persisted... is there an obligation on the one who knows about this matter to turn back on the boycotting person and alert him?

The Shaykh : It is necessary to do so, and therefore I reversed... As for the issue of advice, it has been spoken of.The Shaykh : The speaker, that , and this was a reminder of the obligation of mutual advice. If the boycotted person has repented and turned back, and the boycotting person continues to boycott him, he is in error. We do not say now to reverse the roles, as I commented jokingly earlier, that the case flips so that the boycotting person is boycotted, but rather he is alerted that his time is up now.

The questioner : And if the boycotted person tries once, twice, and three times, and the boycotting person remains and persists in his boycott, is there anything required of him?

The Shaykh : Excuse me, what did the boycotted person do?

The questioner : He tried more than once to greet him, but he refused and persisted... does he leave the matter, meaning does his role drop off simply because he tries once, twice, and three times, or does he continue trying for a lifetime...?

The Shaykh : ... are you speaking about the boycotted person?

The questioner : The boycotted person tried to reconcile the relationship once, and once, twice, and three times, and that one is persistent in his position. Does the boycotted person settle for trying once, twice, and three times, or does he try to draw close to him for a lifetime?

The Shaykh : No, that is not reasonable... after your question became clear, his obligation has ended, and the case turns to the boycotting person, so he becomes the sinner in the boycott. And therefore we said that he should be advised, because it is not obligatory for the boycotted person to do more than what I mentioned earlier, unless the matter takes a second direction, for example, there are financial rights, and this boycotted person does not fulfill these rights.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : And therefore you do not mean this. The role has ended.

The questioner : Branching from this question is another question: perhaps the boycotting person actually did not limit the matter to himself, meaning he extended it to his family and children and prevented them from talking to the other party and his children, and so on...

The Shaykh : It has become clear to everyone that the man has repented and turned back to Allah.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : The same applies; it is not permissible for these people to continue in that.

The questioner : Okay, the withdrawal of the situation... strong between two people, so even if the other, the boycotted person, did not repent, hypothetically... his children and his wife, and they knew that every person is responsible for himself, is there an issue between two individuals?

The Shaykh : I mean, do you imply, Abu Yahya, that the boycotted person has children, so they were also boycotted?

The questioner : Because of him, yes.

The Shaykh : Because of him, this is not permissible, because .

The questioner : Okay, the narration about our master Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) with 'Amir ibn Yasir, how authentic is it? When 'Amir brought to the Caliph the opinion of the Muslims to bring his relatives close and appoint them to positions, it is said that Uthman was angry with him and attacked him until... and after this, 'Amir swore not to...

The questioner : ... in the many hadiths, the hadiths that permit and allow a Muslim to boycott.

The Shaykh : The boycott occurred among the Companions , where they boycotted for fifty days.

The questioner : This evidence is based on applying to Muslims in general... but in other cases, there is also another evidence that clarifies, because this evidence...

The Shaykh : My brother, your saying, Abu 'Abdullah, that there is another evidence, this is not the scientific method that a student of knowledge should follow. This...

The questioner : We need the matters to be clarified more, because those have many clear evidences in the prohibition, whereas this... if it is more clarified?

The Shaykh : Your saying to him that there is something other than the verse, this is as he says, and this often happens to us, especially since he is behind the wall, behind the phone. In the hadith, I... and if I mention an issue, I must bring two or three hadiths in it. This is not conceivable. The important thing is that if the permissibility of boycotting is established in the Shari'ah, in the Noble Qur'an, it should not be said at that time regarding other evidence. Why? Because this question makes the attendees feel that this evidence is not sufficient. And therefore, we mentioned another evidence. This is a side note that has no relation to the topic, only to remind of the goodness of asking. Good asking is half of knowledge, as it is said in the past. After this, I say that it has been established that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) boycotted his wives for a month, and I fear, what I most fear, is that a question will come from the other side that this is also in this hadith, because this hadith has a relation to women and the man.

The questioner : In ... .

The Shaykh : No, we are left with this... this is what we feared... What is the answer now? The question is about the first boycott mentioned in the Qur'an and the second boycott mentioned in the Prophetic hadiths. This is a question to sharpen our minds: Is it a purely devotional command whose meaning is not to be reasoned about, or is it a command whose meaning is to be understood?

The questioner : A matter whose meaning is rational.

The Shaykh : It is a command whose meaning is to be understood. So, when a text comes and its ruling is one whose meaning is to be understood, it is not purely devotional. In that case, we stop at this text and do not go beyond it, even if we find others. We are now facing two texts. Why did the Messenger (peace be upon him) order his noble Companions to boycott the three who lagged behind? Without a doubt, the answer is for discipline. Why did the Messenger (peace be upon him) boycott his wives? For discipline. So we ask: Why did Zayd boycott 'Amr? If it is on the same basis, there is evidence from the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. But the difference, without a doubt, and this is very clear, is that it is not the same as Al-Albani boycotting Zayd, Bakr, and 'Amr as the Companions were directly ordered to boycott those three who lagged behind. And even more so, it is not like the Messenger (peace be upon him) boycotting his wives, because he is protected from error. But the important thing is that the one boycotting, who is Al-Albani, is boycotting for the purpose of disciplining the one being boycotted. Here, if he is correct in that, he is rewarded, and his role model is the Book and the Sunnah. And if he is wrong, and there is room for someone to point out the error, we welcome that. We say, "O Abu Bilal, may Allah have mercy on the one who points out my faults to me."

The questioner : ... Ibn 'Umar, when he forbade the man from throwing pebbles, he said, "If you return..."

The Shaykh : O Abu 'Abdullah, it is here, not there.The Shaykh : 'Ali reminds us of a hadith. It is that 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab narrated one day a hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: Then one of his sons said, "By Allah, we will not allow them to go out." The father said to his son, "I am telling you that the Messenger of Allah said so and so, and you say, 'I will not do it.' By Allah, I will never speak to you again." ... He said, "I am telling you that the Messenger of Allah said it, and you are saying the opposite of what the Messenger of Allah said. By Allah, I will never speak to you again." And he did not speak to him until he died. The hadith is in Sahih Muslim. What was Ibn 'Umar's intention? Discipline.

The questioner : There is another hadith from my side.

The Shaykh : ... May Allah will it that your hadith is as strong as his, not like a cotton bag.

The questioner : One of the Companions... reported about throwing pebbles. His name is... 'Abdullah ibn Mughaffal. So another Companion came to him and said to him, ... this pebble... with the hand... So this Companion also found that he was doing his work, and said to him, "I told you that the Messenger of Allah forbade it, and you are still hunting with this..." He said to him, "I will never speak to you again."

The questioner : ... By Allah, I will not share a roof with you.

The questioner : How do we reconcile this action with the hadith of the Messenger of Allah that forbade it for more than three days?

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you, may Allah forgive you. It is a matter of... My dear, what are we saying? The forbidden boycott is the worldly boycott, to quench the thirst of the soul against this opponent. But the prescribed boycott is for an educational purpose. And now your question is not relevant.

The questioner : Now, the education of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar of his son.

The Shaykh : His father, the educator, of his son.

The questioner : Do you think that his son was a Companion of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah? It does not mean that he did not repent and he made him...

The Shaykh : This is another issue. And you go back and greet our friend Abu Bilal here. This is another issue. We are investigating why 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar boycotted his son and did not speak to him until he died, for discipline regarding his wrong stance toward the hadith of the Messenger (peace be upon him). As for the issue of whether he repented or not, that has no place in the subject. What concerns us is knowing why 'Abdullah boycotted his son. Was it to quench his anger or to take revenge for the hadith of his Prophet and to uphold the hadith of his Prophet? That is it, without a doubt. So this is the difference between the prescribed boycott and the non-prescribed boycott. That is, two people quarrel with each other, and this often happens for a worldly matter. As we said in the explanation of the hadith and the commentary on it, our Lord permitted that these three boycott each other for three days. And after that, the best of them is the one who starts by greeting his brother. There is no boycott for the sake of Allah here. The boycott for the sake of Allah continues unless it becomes clear, as we also said in the previous complete hadith, that the one being boycotted has repented and turned to Allah. For example, a person who does not pray, and his brother or friend or beloved boycotts him, and so on, and explains to him the reason for the boycott. He does not leave it as if he is sleeping, because you do not pray... A long or short time passes, it does not matter. The man started praying for Allah the Exalted and Majestic. The reason for which the boycott was done is gone. And so on.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : We know the answer only in the hadith.