What is your opinion of these rules: whoever does not declare the disbeliever a disbeliever is himself a disbeliever, whoever does not declare the innovator an innovator is himself an innovator, and whoever is not with us is against us?

The questioner : There are some rules, O Shaykh, that some of the young people follow, among them the rule "whoever does not declare the disbeliever a disbeliever is himself a disbeliever," then "whoever does not declare the innovator an innovator is himself an innovator," and another rule, "whoever is not with us is against us." What is your opinion of these rules, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : And where did these rules come from, and who established them? This reminds me of a joke told in our authentic land, Albania, which my father (may Allah have mercy on him) related in some gatherings. The story goes that a learned man visited a friend at his home, and when he left, the friend declared him a disbeliever. He was asked, "Why?" We have a custom in our land, which I think is common in the lands of the non-Arabs, where they honor or respect or revere scholars with certain customs and traditions that vary from country to country. For example, when a man enters a room and sits down, when he leaves, the slippers should be turned so that the scholar does not have to make the effort to turn them around and go back in, but rather finds the slippers ready for him to step into. So when this scholar visited his friend and left, he found the slippers just as they were, meaning they had not been respected.The Shaykh : He left them as they were, so the learned man said, "This is disbelief." Why? Because he did not respect the scholar, and whoever does not respect the scholar does not respect knowledge, and whoever does not respect knowledge does not respect the one who brought the knowledge, and the one who brought the knowledge is Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). And so he would take it all the way to Jibril and to the Lord of the Worlds. So he is a disbeliever. This question, or this rule, reminded me of this superstition. It is not necessarily the case that if a person declares someone a disbeliever and establishes the proof against him, that everyone must agree with him in declaring him a disbeliever, because he may be interpreting the evidence and the other scholar may see that it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever. The same applies to declaring someone an open sinner or an innovator. In reality, this is one of the trials of the present age, and the haste of some young people in claiming knowledge. The point is that this sequence, or this compulsion, is not necessary at all. This is a broad matter; one scholar may see a matter as obligatory, and another may see it as not so. Scholars have differed before and after only because the door of independent legal reasoning does not compel others to take my opinion, which would necessitate taking the other opinion. It is only the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence, who has no knowledge, who is obligated to follow. But if he is a scholar like the one who declared someone a disbeliever, or an open sinner, or an innovator, and does not see it as he does, he is never compelled to follow that scholar. It appears to be a disaster, because, if Allah wills, it has not yet spread from your lands to other lands.