Abu Malik’s remarks on the principle that “the end justifies the means.”

Abu Malik: The means are not permissible in an absolute sense, even if the end is achieved, or if the means are corrupt in their essence. If the matter is sound, they should follow it; otherwise, they should forget it, or not hold to this understanding or this jurisprudence regarding this saying attributed to Machiavelli, “the end justifies the means.” They say, for example, that images are forbidden, and they criticize those who say that acting or image-making is permissible, considering acting or image-making to be among the forbidden matters that are not permissible. However, there is a means that can be invented or adopted from this, whereby we dispense with visual acting and image-making; it is sufficient that we imagine and visualize things with our ears and voices. In that case, we would have avoided the means whose prohibition is agreed upon, namely image-making and acting. Then they take this part and arrange it, building upon it this heinous, bad matter. And I truly say, as our Shaykh has graciously mentioned, that we are in days of fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that are collapsing like a dish falling onto its plate. The worst of fitnah is what a person is unable to hear—not just a statement to ward off one, two, or three fitnahs—but I say that the cure, of course, is not in our hands nor in yours, no matter how much you try. There are also many heinous matters, perhaps more heinous and more difficult than this, about which people remain silent. So I say the cure for these people is to establish direct contact with those who produce this. It is not enough that we remain in criticizing them from afar. But we must go to them and explain to them the Shari'ah ruling in this matter. And that achieving the end by this means is undoubtedly forbidden and absolutely not permissible. And this opens a larger and wider door. And Islamic recordings in the future, as long as we have opened this door and permitted it, will result in greater and greater evil. Perhaps the day will come when we see video that permits visible and audible obscenity as a matter with no prohibition. This is first, meaning that these people should be warned and made to fear Allah and the Last Day, among other things. And then, after that, work should be done to educate the youth that this is a forbidden means, and that it is not permissible to buy such a tape or to encourage it. And there is also the fact that Allah removes by the authority what He does not remove by the Qur'an. There is no harm in contacting those who enjoin good and forbid evil, and explaining to them and counting for them these roles or these recordings that engage in such recording, so that such tapes and recordings are confiscated.

The questioner: Our Shaykh, truly this question is because there are youth labeled as Salafis who do not listen to us, O Shaykh. As it was said, if you put in the fourth button, they would say you are an innovator. The Salafis would say you are an innovator. So they do not listen to us. We wanted the advice to come from you and fromThe Shaykh : Abu Malik, so that it has more impact on them. This is what is intended by the question, not for the purpose of publicizing them.

The Shaykh: In any case, perhaps in a wordThe Shaykh : Abu Malik, there is no need for that. As for me, I say that the matter is not as is commonly believed in this age, that means differ legally from ends, and that Muslim callers to Allah, or the Muslim caller, may adopt any means by which he achieves a legal end. This is because this premise of justifying any means by supporting the achievement of a legal end is, first, not what is known in the Shari'ah, and second, and this is more important, that means concerning the training of souls, their refinement, and bringing them closer to the obedience of their Creator are also transmitted, like the ends and the objectives. We do not deny that some material means progress with time and become capable of achieving things that were not easily achievable in the past. We do not deny the existence of such means, as we are now recording with a microphone and the like of what you mentioned earlier, such as filming some events without them being seen. These are means that appeared in the present age. However, it is not permissible to make a general statement about the permissibility of using them on the grounds that we intend to achieve a legal end, because we must say that the means must also be a lawful means. In fact, this issue is related to two scientific principles: one is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) and the other is what is known among scholars as the unconnected public interests. Unconnected public interests are often confused by some people with the innovation of misguidance, and therefore some have not affirmed the permissibility of adopting this principle, which is the unconnected public interests. It is very clear that what is intended by an unconnected public interest is the existence of a cause or a means that achieves a legal end. Is it permissible to adopt this means as long as it achieves a legal end, or not? Some took the position of unconnected public interests and said it is permissible, while others did not. But the reality is that making a general statement about unconnected public interests, either affirmatively or negatively, is not sound; rather, it is necessary to distinguish. This is the distinction to which my soul found peace and my chest opened, and I derived it from the words of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). When I mention this issue, I consider it obligatory upon me to mention the Shaykh al-Islam, as the credit belongs to him in this matter, in the sense that one of the blessings of knowledge is attributing every statement to its speaker, especially if it is a significant and great scientific statement. In addition to this, you will find it rare; you do not find it in the depths of the books of the great scholars. He provides the following distinction: The means that has occurred and from which it is hoped that a benefit for the Muslims will be achieved must be studied. Was it present in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which necessitates adopting it, or was it not? If the necessitating factor for adopting it is present, and it is a means that actually achieves the end that the one holding to it later aims for in the name of unconnected public interests, yet the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) did not adopt this means, and thus did not achieve that end, then it is not permissible for us to adopt this means, even if it achieves a legal end. Why? Because our adopting it would be a correction of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), who said If this were a means that was available in his time (peace and blessings be upon him) and possible, and if it were intended to convey the end that is ultimately intended by this means, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would have adopted it. From this, the scholars of the Salaf say, "If it had been good, they would have preceded us to it." All this is in the case where the cause necessitating the adoption of that means is present. The examples are known to you, and among the most famous of them is the adhan for the five prayers, as opposed to the other prayers, especially the rare ones, such as the prayer of the two festivals, or the prayer of the solar or lunar eclipse. People need the adhan to remind them and alert them to the entry of the time, as is the purpose of the adhan for the five prayers. Yet the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not adopt this means. Therefore, it is not permissible for us to adopt this means. This is intended as an example and analogy for what may occur later in terms of means. From this, you know the misguidance of the one who speaks of a "good innovation," for the answer is clearly understood from what has preceded, summarized by: "If it had been good, they would have preceded us to it." However, the precision in the subject, as Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said, is that this cause or this means occurred after it did not exist in the time of the Messenger, so that it can be said, "The Messenger did not adopt it, so why do we adopt it?" If Ibn Taymiyyah asks whether this means that has occurred and achieves a legal benefit should be adopted, he says it is necessary to distinguish. And here is the crux of the matter, as it is said. He said: If the means, or the deterrent or the motive for adopting it, is the Muslims' neglect of adopting the lawful means that achieve those legal ends, then it is not permissible to adopt this means, even if it achieves a legal end. One of the clearest examples of this, which shares with the unconnected public interest as will be explained, is these taxes and levies imposed today on Muslim societies, imitated by these rulers from the disbelieving rulers in the lands of disbelief and misguidance. Those disbelievers do not have the legislation that Muslims have; they do not have the lawful means to feed, I mean to feed the state treasury with abundant financial resources. The Europeans do not have what the Muslims have, and therefore they were forced to impose these levies and taxes so that they could run their states, even if it is on their clear misguidance. As for the Muslims adopting these means with the intention of feeding the Bayt al-Mal (the public treasury) and managing the affairs of the Muslims, is it permissible to adopt these levies and taxes? The answer is: No, first; and Yes, in some emergency circumstances, second. As for the "No" first: because these governments that adopted these taxes and levies have turned away from the Islamic economic system that feeds the state treasury with lawful financial resources, such as collecting the zakah from the rich. This system is not applied today, in my opinion, in any of the Muslim countries. There is no system of tax collectors to collect the zakah on fruits and the zakah on livestock and the like. This is in my knowledge. In most Muslim countries, it is certain that the system of collecting these funds has become a thing of the past. So they substituted for it the imposition of these levies and taxes, and they equated the rich with the poor, thus combining two injustices. The first injustice is turning away from applying the rulings of the Shari'ah, and the second injustice is what they poured upon the poor and the needy, upon whom our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) did not impose a known right in their wealth, until these tyrannical rulers come and impose a known right upon their wealth. Therefore, this means, even if it achieves a lawful end, is not permissible to adopt, because there are lawful means that suffice them, so they do not need to resort to these temporary, modern means. I said earlier that it may be possible to impose taxes, and that would be from the perspective of a truly lawful public interest, if the Muslim world or the Muslim state were suddenly attacked by a treacherous enemy who attacked a part of the Muslim lands, and that required the Muslim ruler to prepare a force to subdue that enemy and drive it back. If he did not find in the state treasury enough money to perform this obligation, then it is prescribed for that ruler to impose taxes to the extent that repels that enemy from the Muslim land. It is not by that general system in which the rich and the poor, and the capable and the incapable, are equal. No, rather, each according to his capacity and ability. Once the benefit is achieved and the enemy is driven back, this financial system is abolished, because the established legal system suffices the stable countries in normal conditions from any imposition of a temporary tax. If we know this distinction, where does this means that you mentioned to us earlier stand? It is, first, an unlawful means in itself, and second, it is a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) in itself. It does not achieve a benefit, because the benefit is achieved by the verses and hadiths and the reports of the Salaf that remind people of the consequences for sinners, thieves, and fornicators, and the like. Therefore, I consider that this means that we heard earlier is, first, an innovated means. If it achieves a legal end, it is only because those who adopted it turned away from the remembrance of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), which is the only means for training souls that have strayed from the straight path. And Allah is the Helper, and there is no power and no strength except with Allah. It is now ten thirty. Perhaps you will allow me, if Allah wills.

The questioner : Shaykh, a final question. What is the meaning of "establishing the prayer" in the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ?

The Shaykh : It means they were commanded to establish it and were not prevented from establishing it. That is what I understand from the hadith. Is there anything else? This answer, I mean, in brief.

The questioner : I mean, we have, and praise be to Allah... and they pray, if Allah wills (Mighty and Majestic). Some of them, when we asked them or when we cited the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the impermissibility of rebelling against rulers, asked, "Did they actually establish it?" and he remained silent, did not clarify, and paused in his speech. So I thought he had another intention.

The Shaykh : First, may Allah reward you. If the intention is regarding rebellion, if they do not establish the prayer, we understand something else after we have understood that what is behind the veil, behind "they established the prayer," is the opposite of open disbelief. So their establishing the prayer, even in the sense I mentioned just now, is what negates open disbelief from them. And in that case, the hadiths explain one another. When it came in some hadiths in Sahih Muslim and in another narration , open disbelief does not coincide with establishing the prayer in this manner, openly in the mosques, in congregation, and so on. Then I will say something I have always said: if they interpret "they established the prayer" to mean they did not establish it, that means they saw open disbelief from them, and the necessary consequence of that is the permissibility of rebellion. In that case, we will come to the issue from its end. Suppose we saw open disbelief and that they were prevented from prayer, as is happening now in many countries. From Algeria, I was asked more than once. Then a question came to me in writing on Friday after the prayer from the Jews in Gaza, after the Muslim rulers in Algeria. They followed the Muslims in the path of Muslim rulings. They claimed in Algeria that they had issued a decision a few months ago prohibiting movement at night until five in the morning. So more than one person asked me by phone, of course from Algeria, saying, "O Shaykh," and they use the phrase "O Shaykh" often. "You must have heard that movement is prohibited until five, but we are now facing a problem between the sunrise and five o'clock. It is a quarter of an hour, meaning the sun rises at five fifteen. So we are asking you: do we pray Fajr in our homes in the darkness, or do we pray the morning prayer in the mosques in the light, even though the time is only a quarter of an hour?" I answered that you should pray it in the mosque with the Muslim congregation, in the light, not in the darkness. I mean, in the light. May Allah reward you with good. You pray with the Muslims in the light in congregation, which is better than praying in the darkness in your homes. And if the same problem occurs with the Muslims in Gaza from the Jews, but at the time of Maghrib and Isha, where they say that after nine o'clock, going out is prohibited, and Isha is with them after nine. The question was: is it permissible to combine Maghrib and Isha, or do we pray Maghrib only and pray in our homes individually? I saw that they should combine them in the House of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in congregation. Combining is better than praying the last Isha prayer individually in their homes. The point is: if we saw, God forbid, this tyranny from the rulers of Algeria or others, and they prevented prayer in the mosques, then indeed they did not establish the prayer, certainly, without doubt or hesitation. And it is true that we saw open, blatant disbelief from them. So, do we rebel? The answer is: are you prepared for rebellion? And I mean by preparation, spiritual and moral preparation. I say: if these two conditions are not present in those who want to rebel against the disbelieving ruler, rebellion is not permissible, and shedding blood is preserved for what? And to avoid falling into shedding blood among Muslims themselves. Because even if we saw open, blatant disbelief from the ruler, those under him are under his command, among us and within us. So fighting would have to occur between the two groups. And what we mostly suspect is that we would retreat in our da'wah. Let whoever sees a lesson in others take a lesson. When Jahman rebelled in the Sacred Mosque, we saw the harms of this rebellion in your country, where the da'wah was, praise be to Allah, moving forward. It was delayed for many years. We ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) that the waters return to their channels, and to something better than before. And this is enough, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. If you know that the intention behind not rebelling from the group is that it does not achieve the goal of rebellion, you know that individual rebellion is throwing oneself into destruction, so it is not permissible. And glory be to You, O Allah, and with Your praise. I testify that there is no god but Allah. I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.