Is there a criterion for distinguishing the principles (usul) from other matters, or do we say that the entire Shari'ah is principles?

The questioner : In response to the statement that not standing for a person entering is not among the principles (usul), because it was the Companions' understanding to honor the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), the question is: Is there a criterion for knowing the principles (usul) from other matters, or can we say that the entire Shari'ah is principles?

The Shaykh : No, this is a purely terminological issue. But it seems I confused you with what I said earlier. Repeat the question to me so I can grasp it, and then I will clarify whether it is correct or not.

The questioner : Some of the distinguished scholars said in your presence, in a scholarly session, that not standing for a person entering is not among the principles (usul), because it was the Companions' understanding to honor the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)?

The Shaykh : This is a term that, if used in accordance with scholarly convention, refers to a secondary issue, not a fundamental one. However, it is possible that the transmitter, the listener, or the speaker was lax in this or that aspect, either in expression or in understanding. So I am saying now that the issue of standing for the one who enters is a secondary issue in the terminology of the scholars, not a fundamental one, because when they refer to fundamentals, they mean the rules, and sometimes they mean the creed. Then, in the first case, when they refer to fundamentals as rules, they refer to their counterpart by saying "branches," and when they refer to fundamentals as creed, they refer to their counterpart as "rulings." So our issue here is not among the fundamentals according to either convention; it is neither a rule nor a creed, but rather a branch, and then a ruling. However, I think that the one who said it is among the scientific fundamentals meant that when we interpret a hadith, as mentioned in the brother's question just now, we should interpret this hadith in light of the understanding of the Salaf and their application of it. I believe the word "fundamentals" was used in such an occasion, not that the issue itself, which is not standing for the one who enters, is among the fundamentals. No, but the method of understanding it—that it is not prescribed to stand for the one who enters—is returning to a fundamental of the Shari'ah, which is understanding these fundamentals from the Book and the Sunnah as our righteous predecessors did. And so we insist, with strong insistence, on all true Islamic callers who hold fast to the Book and the Sunnah in truth, that they not be content with calling to the Book and the Sunnah without adding to that their statement and the methodology of the righteous predecessors. This is because I have said repeatedly, and I believe this is a very, very necessary matter for every true Muslim caller, that in all the sects covered by the hadith of the sects, namely the seventy-two lost sects, there is no sect that says, "We are not on the Book and the Sunnah." Every one of these sects says, "We are on the Book and the Sunnah." So what is the essential difference between these sects, which agree with the saved sect in that they also hold fast to the Book and the Sunnah? The difference, as the poet said: "This difference between us is sufficient for you, and every vessel emits what is in it." The difference is that you do not find, even today, a sect among those sects that says, "We are on the Book and the Sunnah and the way of the righteous predecessors," except the saved sect. It is that which distinguished itself in methodology and application by its affiliation to the righteous predecessors. And we say this is not a purely ijtihadi or inferential opinion, but it is the explicit text in the Noble Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. As for the Noble Qur'an, the statement of the Lord of the Worlds is . And there is no doubt or ambiguity that the first thing that comes to mind is that the intended meaning of this word, "the path of the believers," is the first Salaf, whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) testified to as the best of generations, as you know in the authentic hadith, indeed the mass-transmitted hadith in my view and my critique. And it is an error to hear the expression "the best of generations." No, rather his statement (peace be upon him) is . So these are the people of the three generations who were given this good Prophetic testimony, and they are the first ones intended by the statement of the Exalted, . Of course, this includes the path of the believers who followed in their path, and we hope to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to be among them. If that is the case, we should adhere to this methodology in calling, action, and application. And perhaps what has reached you is good, so it is fitting that I let you hear an interesting discussion that took place between me and one who shares with us the necessity of returning to the Book and the Sunnah, but whose mind was empty and devoid of the necessity of this addition. . He had visited me at my home, and I hosted him as a guest because I hoped that through my attention to him, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) would guide him, and that Allah would guide a people behind him. When the time for his departure was near, after a few days, I conducted the following dialogue with him. I said to him, "If a questioner asked you, 'What is your madhhab (school of thought)?' what would you say?" He said, "Muslim." I said, "That is a deviation from the answer. If asked 'What is your religion,' saying 'I am Muslim' is a correct answer, but the question was 'What is your madhhab?' When you say 'I am Muslim,' I consider it a deviation. And the proof is that I will tell you: if we asked any sect or any group of the misguided sects that you know today this question, and they answered you with this answer, would you be satisfied with it from them? Ask the Ibadi, ask the Khariji, ask the Murji'i, ask the Mu'tazili, ask the Shi'i, ask the Rafidi, and so on, 'What is your madhhab?' They would use taqiyyah (dissimulation) with you, as you did with me, and say to you, 'I am Muslim.' But you are not convinced by this answer. So what is the correct answer? He realized what was behind the veil and finally answered, but with an answer that was also not correct. He said, 'I am Muslim on the Book and the Sunnah.' He added the phrase 'the Book and the Sunnah.' I said, in the military expression of some countries, 'Stay in your position and move.' Do you know 'Stay in your position and move'? It means there is movement but no progress. He said, 'Why?' I said, 'If we asked those whose answer you were not satisfied with, which was your answer, would they not also say to you, as you said the second time, 'On the Book and the Sunnah'?' He said, 'Then it is necessary to say, 'On the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous predecessors.' He was with us in thought, but not with us in expression and style. I said, 'Well, now we agree in terms of methodology, but now we need to express it. If we go back to where we started and a questioner asked you, 'What is your madhhab?' what would you say?' He said, 'I would say, 'On the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous predecessors.' I said, 'Is there not in the Arabic language something that allows us to summarize this long phrase? Every time a questioner asks you, do you want to give him a long cliché? If I were an Albanian and the sweat was dripping, I might make a mistake in expression, so I would seek your help if we summarized this whole phrase and a questioner asked you, 'What is your madhhab?' I would say, 'I am a Salafi.' Does that not express this long phrase? So he agreed with this answer. So why did we affiliate ourselves to the Salaf? And why do we call ourselves Salaf or Salafi? Because we want to make people understand our call in word and application. This standing that people have become accustomed to now, how do we understand it? We understand it as it was practiced by our righteous predecessors. To this day, many scholars still interpret his statement (peace be upon him) , and in a wording . There are two interpretations of this hadith. The first is: whoever loves that people stand for him while he is sitting, let him do as the Persians did with their great ones. And the second interpretation is: No, whoever loves that when he enters a gathering, people stand for him as if he ordered them to stand for him and they obeyed his order. To this day, this interpretation exists in these two ways. If we come to the application of the Companions and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) with his noble Companions regarding the meaning of this hadith, how was it? If the first interpretation is adopted, meaning he is sitting and they are standing, that means if he entered and they stood, the hadith would not cover him, is that not so? Are you with me or not? Well, but the Salaf did not understand the hadith this way, and the proof is that the reason the Companion narrated this hadith was not because he was sitting and they stood, i.e., they did to him what the Persians and Romans did to their great ones, but rather he narrated this hadith when he entered a gathering like this gathering and some people stood for him, so he forbade them from doing so. He said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) say ." So this Companion who heard this hadith from the Messenger understood it with the second meaning, not the first. And so was the life of the righteous predecessors; they did not know this standing that you know in your lands with scholars and people of virtue, and others as well. And I will not add to this, for this standing was not known in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Rather, one who accompanied the Prophet (peace be upon him) for ten years to serve him for the sake of Allah told us, saying, "No one was more beloved to them than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) in sight, and they did not stand for him because they knew his dislike of it." And if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), who is the master of mankind, and his Companions, who are the best of the Companions of a Prophet on the face of the earth, are the most knowledgeable people about such his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) , then our Prophet is their great one and their scholar, and yet when he (peace be upon him) entered upon them, they did not stand for him. So who would be more deserving of standing for him than he? And who would be more knowledgeable about the right of scholars than his Companions? Neither this nor that. So we, whenever a hadith comes to us and the scholars interpret it with some interpretations, we return in understanding it to what our righteous predecessors were upon. This is one of the hadiths, and it is . There are two interpretations of it. There is another hadith, and its apparent meaning is closer to the issue of this standing, even if it is far from it once the correct understanding is clarified. . The hadith of Mu'adh, which many commentators and scholars mentioned in the evidence of those who say it is recommended to stand for the scholar, and Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) has a treatise on this topic and argues with this hadith. And this, unfortunately, in my belief, is among the mistakes of the scholars in interpreting some texts, from both aspects: from the aspect of narration and from the aspect of understanding. As for the narration, the hadith with the wording is not "Stand up for your master." The hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari and others is . It is not with the wording "Stand up for your master." And I think I am saying this so that we do not expand on self-evident matters. I say, we say that you also agree with me in distinguishing between what the narration of the hadith is and what some distort without intent to "Stand up for your master." You are with me in the distinction between the two expressions, between the correct expression and the distorted expression "Stand up for your master," is that not so? There is an apparent difference. And based on this apparent difference, the hadith has no relation to the issue of the one who enters and people standing for him out of respect and honor. Because this standing is for him, not toward him. And for this reason, we say that standing toward the one who enters is permissible, because the hadith came as an explicit text in that. But who stands toward the one who enters? All the people of the gathering? Rather, the host of the gathering stands, for he is the one who goes to him, receives him, and seats him in the house or in the place suitable for him. If we know this reality, it helps our knowledge of what our righteous predecessors were upon to understand this hadith as it came, , and not "Stand up for your master." Especially since Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), narrated this hadith in his Musnad from the narration of the Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) in a long story with the wording . This addition, as they say today in the modern era, puts the dots on the letters and invalidates the interpretation of the hadith as being for honoring the one who enters. It indicates and confirms that the command was to stand to go to the master, who was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, to dismount him from his mount, because he was sick and injured in his ankle. So the dismounting here is for necessity, not for honor and respect. In this light, we understand the origin of this standing. But the issue itself is not a fundamental, so it is a branch. Perhaps this is sufficient, if Allah wills.