What is your opinion on the teaching of the Ash'ari creed in many universities?

The questioner : If Allah wills, this is a very major issue in the creed, namely the Ash'ari school... We find that most universities in the Arab countries teach the Ash'ari creed, and we ask Allah for safety from it. We find that the creed does not conform to that of the people of the Sunnah, and this matter is hidden from many. Many students of knowledge argue about this topic without knowledge, even though the disagreement of scholars and great scholars means that students of knowledge should be satisfied and not intervene...?

The Shaykh : This is, unfortunately, a reality today. But and as the poet said, "Whoever seeks excellence stays up the nights." That is, whoever wants to know the truth from what people have differed on, he must strive and he must study. If he is among the people of knowledge, he must study it himself. If he is not among them, then as Allah the Exalted said: That is enough, O Abu Layla, and may Allah's peace and mercy and blessings be upon you.

The questioner : If my teacher, the disbelief attributed to not judging by the law of Allah Mighty and Majestic, is what we know to be that disbelief is less than disbelief, and there is practical disbelief and creedal disbelief, does this also apply to the verse according to this report?

The Shaykh : Yes, it varies according to the individuals.

The questioner : The ruler may actually be a disbeliever, or he may be a disbeliever in practical disbelief, for example. For example, if he says, "By Allah, we apply what is good of the Islamic Shari'ah. We apply the good of the Islamic Shari'ah, and in rulings that do not suit this time..."?

Another questioner : And this is a creedal [matter].
Al-Halabi : I misspoke.

The questioner : We sometimes hear this from some judges or rulers who say and declare such words.

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar. If the judges are disbelievers, are the rulers not disbelievers?

The questioner : Yes, we have heard the words from people, mostly judges. That is the most I have actually heard.
Al-Halabi : Here in Jordan?

The questioner : Yes, in Jordan.
Al-Halabi : And they wear turbans?

The questioner : No, they are not religious scholars, but civil, civil judges. But he means that this issue is contrary to the Shari'ah of Allah Mighty and Majestic, and he wishes he could rule by the Shari'ah of Allah. And indeed, some of the civil judges have this feeling and say, "I wish we could apply the Islamic Shari'ah, and we hope for it, but it does not come to our hands because we are bound by these texts in our hands." So what is the ruling on this? He condemns this law that is contrary to the Shari'ah. If it were up to me, I would cut off the hand of the thief, I would rule with the cutting off of the hand of the thief and do it, but I am not able to; I do not have the authority. So is his action only a sin, his contravention of the Shari'ah?

The Shaykh : Is this in accordance with the previous question?

The questioner : I mean, is this action a sin, and he is of course a Muslim?

The Shaykh : He is not a disbeliever.
Al-Halabi : A little while ago you mentioned the story of the sorcerer, the boy, and the king. At the end of the story, you mentioned that the boy ransomed himself for the sake of his people. Is it possible to use this story as evidence, or if someone uses this story as evidence, for the permissibility of what is called in today's language suicide operations or martyrdom operations? Is his martyrdom valid?

The Shaykh : No, because we say now that we live under a complete Islamic rule, and the previous legislations were not like our Shari'ah. Therefore, regarding this issue, we say it is not permissible for individuals to control their own souls and to ransom themselves with their own opinions, unlike if that is the execution of an order from a responsible person who is working under his Islamic leadership.

The questioner : A leader or a ruler who sees that the interest of the Muslims is that this man performs the suicide operation, so there is no harm? If so, is the matter not about him ruling on his own life?

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : If we do not expand it a bit more?

The Shaykh : But if you expand it, it will narrow later...

The questioner : No, I want to lighten it and retract the word "expand it." Now, Hezbollah and the like, now giving an order or executing an operation that a person executes?

The Shaykh : And can the shadow be straight while the stick is crooked?

The questioner : It cannot be straight. What is built upon falsehood is false.

The Shaykh : So it is false, yes.

Another questioner : In my opinion, these people serve Islam, and these are the enemies of Islam. It is just this creed, and it may not exist in the individuals, and these people responsible for them may be misguided oppressors. So this individual who offered himself, thinking that he is serving Islam and the Muslims, I mean this intention...?

The Shaykh : It is between him and his Lord.

The questioner : But this intention does not intercede for him?

The Shaykh : But we are talking about the one who wants to learn Islam and to apply it.
Al-Halabi : We ruled on the action itself, not on its doer.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Al-Halabi : His matter is between him and his Lord.

The Shaykh : Between Allah.

The questioner : Regarding the issue of divorce, if you allow me, my Shaykh, divorce in every... let me generalize, because "every" does not mean "all" in the Arabic language, is that not its meaning?

The Shaykh : No, that is not its meaning. It may be intended...

The questioner : Most people divorce their daughter or their wife. They divorce her with the first divorce. Each one goes his way; he goes to his father's house and she goes to her father's house. This is a reality...

The Shaykh : And that one goes to his father's house, why?

The questioner : That one goes to his father's house and she goes to her father's house. This is, of course, contrary to the explicit text of the Qur'an that it is not permissible [for her to leave]; she must complete the waiting period in her husband's house, and that if there is a possibility of taking her back, and so on. And this matter is truly a reality today. I have not heard of anyone who divorces his wife in the court and then he and she return, except that each one returns by his own way. Is that correct or not?

The Shaykh : Correct and not correct.

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : ...

The questioner : These are few, the rare ones.

The Shaykh : No, it is a reality, but it is not correct in terms of the Shari'ah.

The questioner : Correct in terms of the Shari'ah? Of course, I know it is not correct in terms of the Shari'ah.

The Shaykh : What are you doing with me?

The questioner : Okay, by Allah, this is good for Allah. This is the duty of the religious judges, my teacher. Do they not have to, while they know this reality, clarify such a matter to these two spouses? Does the sin not fall upon them for leaving this Sunnah?

The Shaykh : Undoubtedly, not only upon them...

The questioner : Do not say "us, the Shaykhs." I am preparing, if Allah wills, a fiery sermon on the topic. If the verse, my teacher, is not abrogated, the one in Surat al-Talaq?

The Shaykh : I seek refuge in Allah. What abrogated it?

The questioner : It is not abrogated, it is correct.

The Shaykh : Yes, the verse is correct.

The questioner : I mean, is the argumentation with it correct in terms of...

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you.

Another questioner : This leads us to a practice that happens in these days, where a man gets angry and gets upset and goes to sit with his family. So if he were to divorce her...

The Shaykh : The same error, but this is a double error. Her leaving her husband's house is considered defiance, and her staying in her father's house is another disobedience after he divorces her, because the verse is attributed to a very logical cause. The verse: In this verse, the jurist, the righteous woman Fatimah bint Qays, argued with those who debated her, where she narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that when her husband divorced her and her divorce was final, the Messenger did not give her maintenance or housing. So when the issue recurred in the time of 'Umar, 'Umar said, "We were not to leave the Book of Allah for the narration of a woman, we do not know if she hit the mark or missed." She said, "Between us and you is the Book of Allah," and she brought this verse, and in its conclusion This is not in the final divorce, but it is in the revocable divorce. So you are carrying it over to the final divorce. It may happen that if there is a final divorce, she is not lawful to him afterwards, according to those who carried it over. And here the error of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and the correctness of the woman appear. And here it must be carried over that the narration which is not authentic from 'Umar, the woman hit the mark and 'Umar erred. Here is its place: she actually hit the mark, she hit the mark in a hadith and she hit the mark in an interpretation.

The questioner : Is this on the topic of the three divorces in one sitting? Or...

The Shaykh : The research is not here. The research is that her husband divorced her three times and he was absent from her, so he sent to her agent. So she asked the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) for maintenance and housing. She said, "So he did not give me maintenance or housing." This incident occurred in the time of 'Umar, so 'Umar gave her maintenance and housing. Who is she? The woman divorced three times. Is it clear up to here?

The questioner : I mean, three times in one sitting?

The Shaykh : This is a second topic; you should make this a separate question. The point is that her divorce was final, so the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not grant her maintenance or housing. A similar incident occurred with another woman during the time of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the report narrated by Fatimah bint Qays (may Allah be pleased with her) was brought forward. He (may Allah be pleased with him) doubted her narration and said, "We do not know if she was correct or mistaken." He argued using this verse, and the verse is very clear that it refers to revocable divorce, as evidenced by its conclusion with the words of Allah the Exalted: , meaning do not go out, and in fact, there is profound wisdom in this, because as you know, if a man is in the house and she lives there, he may long for her and his emotions may stir... and so on, and he may take her back if she is far from him... Therefore, there is profound wisdom in this, and that is in the case of revocable divorce, which is why the verse concludes with the words of Allah the Exalted: , perhaps Allah will bring about a change, meaning affection may arise between them, one for the other, and they may reconsider and reconcile, and so on, and she is still his wife in any case. But if her divorce is final, then he must not approach her . So she argued with the hadith, as a story that happened to her first, then she turned the verse they had used as an argument against them, saying, "You are arguing with the verse for revocable divorce, not final divorce, as evidenced by the end of the verse: As for your question, its answer is well known: a divorce pronounced with the phrase "three times" is considered one divorce.

The questioner : But the question, Professor, is a correction to that: 'Umar ruled differently in some cases, and some people said, I think including 'Umar, that a triple divorce is considered three divorces, even if they were pronounced in one sitting?

The Shaykh : ... 'Umar, at the beginning of his caliphate, ruled that a man who divorced his wife three times in one sitting was considered to have pronounced one divorce, following the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his successor Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. Then, when he saw people abusing this divorce, saying, "I divorce you three times," he saw from the perspective of Islamic legal policy that it should be made three divorces for them. The evidence is that he thought about it before implementing it; he said, "If we make it three for them, then it is three." This is not the way of what was explicitly stated in the Shari'ah, meaning that one consults his own situation, meaning he does this or not? Absolutely not; this returns to a matter of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). It is possible that something appears to him now and then he retracts it; it is possible that it appears to him now and then he implements it later. And that was the case; he implemented it.

The questioner : Did he stick to that?

The Shaykh : He continued with that, and that is how it proceeded after him, unfortunately, until this era, except for individuals to whom Allah opened their insight, and who were not dominated by the imitation of those who came before them. If religion were based on desire, we would wish that the report mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in *Zad al-Ma'ad* were true, that 'Umar returned from it or wished he had returned from implementing the triple divorce as three. But the report, in terms of its chain of narration, is not authentic in reality.

The questioner : So, can it be inferred, Professor, that a ruler has the authority to adopt some matters that are contrary to the Shari'ah for the sake of public benefit, as our master 'Umar did? Is this a valid authority...?

The Shaykh : He exercises independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in this if the situation differs from the situation in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), in the time of the ruler who wants to stop it and does not want to abolish it. Do you understand how?

The questioner : Not really.

The Shaykh : Not really. I see you, even though you are not in front of me, but I hear your voice, I hear your words.

The questioner : No, you interpret it better, because this is one of the miracles (karamat)The Shaykh .

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
Al-Halabi : We have not heard this except on your turn, miraclesThe Shaykh : But be careful, ... .

The Shaykh : I mean, if the situation is the same as the situation in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), then it is not permissible to change the ruling. But if something arises in the situation that was not present in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and the qualified scholar (mujtahid) exercises independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) to issue a new ruling that corresponds to this emerging matter, then it is permissible; otherwise, it is not.

The questioner : But this independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), Professor, is in the place of the explicit text, for our Lord said, "divorce is twice."

The Shaykh : I see light in front of me, and that is all; it is reflecting on you and revealing you. It seems you have not understood yet.

The questioner : I am imagining the situation ... .

The Shaykh : How can you say this is contrary to the text? It is contrary to the text if the situation when the text was revealed is the same as the situation in the time of the one who contradicted the text. And we tell you that the matter is not permissible in this incident, so he returns, and you tell me he contradicted the text. He did not contradict the text, because something arose that was not present in the era in which the text was revealed. For example, another example: one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs added a second call to prayer (adhan) to the Prophetic call on Friday. We call this addition an innovation (bid'ah) today; we call it an innovation today. But far be it from 'Umar to innovate in the religion of Allah.

The questioner : Uthman.

The Shaykh : No, I mean what I am saying; do not attribute it to Uthman... Far be it from 'Umar to innovate in the religion of Allah, and far be it from Uthman to innovate in the religion of Allah by adding a second call to prayer from his own initiative, without a need or reason or necessity that existed and was present in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), far be it from him. But he considered the temporal wisdom, the temporal public benefit, just as his predecessor 'Umar ibn al-Khattab did before him. He found that people were abusing it, as we said, following some reports, by frequently using the phrase "divorce three times." This was not present in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), so he found it, regardless of whether he was correct or mistaken; that is not what concerns us at all. But what concerns us is to say that he did not innovate in the religion of Allah and did not cast aside the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Similarly, Uthman knew that the matter in his time was one call to prayer, so it was never permissible for him to bring in the second call to prayer except because he found a reason that was not present in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, he brought in the second call to prayer. So it is not correct for us to say regarding Uthman or his predecessor 'Umar that they contradicted the text. No, they did not contradict the text.

The questioner : So the second call to prayer is actually the first one.

The Shaykh : This is like that.

The questioner : Why, why?

Another questioner : Okay, my master, the text is present ... .

The questioner : The second one relative to the first ... the Shari'ah

The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.

The questioner : And beware of that.

The Shaykh : Are you done with the previous topic?

The questioner : I am done, but I say, Professor, the issue remains that this is a matter of existing public benefit, specifically, meaning every time we contradict the Shari'ah, we say, "By Allah, this public benefit has ended," for example ... .
Al-Halabi : Bring the public benefit in the form you brought it. Who holds the public benefit?

The questioner : Let us assume a Muslim ruler who is a scholar and a jurist, but the issue of public benefit is still a bit elastic ... .

The Shaykh : And independent legal reasoning (ijtihad)?

The questioner : And independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) is elastic like it.

The Shaykh: May Allah guide you.

Another questioner : Now the text is present and times change, so consequently, if the general rule is "no independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in the place of the text," how is it permissible for some and not permissible for others?

The Shaykh : Who said it is permissible for some and not permissible for others?

The questioner : This is what we understood fromThe Shaykh : Ali, where he said, "Who said such and such."
onAl-Halabi : The issue of unguided public benefits (masalih mursalah).

The Shaykh : No problem, but here a new question has arisen: Who said it is permissible for some and not permissible for others? Whoever was permitted with the previous condition is permitted for those who come after him.

The questioner : Even with the presence of the text, meaning this is what the enemies of Islam say, and times are different now.

The Shaykh : O Shaykh... We say that whoever was permitted to contradict the text for an emerging matter is permitted for those who come after him. So your question is not valid.

The questioner : No, my comment is onThe Shaykh : upon me.

The Shaykh : Come on, comment onThe Shaykh : Ali, please?

The questioner : When he said to him, "The important thing is, who is the one who exercises independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and here the one exercising it is 'Umar... .

The Shaykh : And what was Ali's answer... .

The questioner : I have conceded it... .

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. Good. This means that your response to the research is not like Ali's; now you differ from him.

The questioner : I am the one who is going around it now. Those who take issue with Islam and accuse it of rigidity and regression and the like say that Islam, in the Messenger... came fourteen centuries ago, and now it is fifteen centuries, so what was suitable for that time is no longer, in its majority or most of it, suitable for this time. And their argument is that they say to the color-changing Muslims to accept another view on understanding the Shari'ah, and consequently, for example, you say that it is not permissible to shake hands with a woman, and the woman does not go out to work, and so on. In this time, change, so consequently now... if this talk is known to the general public, to everyone, that it is permissible to contradict the text as a result of a need or public benefit, or they find it a door for them... .

The Shaykh : The same question we directed to your colleague is directed to you: should we open the door to independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) or close it?

The questioner : The door of ijtihad; we leave this ijtihad open.

The Shaykh : But for whom is ijtihad?

The questioner : Let me rephrase the question. I understand from this statement, by inference, that the door of ijtihad is open until Allah inherits the earth and what is upon it, provided that the scholars qualified to derive rulings (mujtahids) possess certain qualities, and that it is permissible for the mujtahids to contradict the text or to suspend it, considering that they have suspended it.

The Shaykh : We do not say they contradict it. First, withdraw that statement, and beware of contagion. And to suspend the text? What do you mean by suspension? No problem.

The questioner : Freezing it.

The Shaykh : Forever.

The questioner : We do not know, as long as we do not know, 'Umar froze it.

The Shaykh : Allow me, we are not talking about 'Umar now; now we are talking about someone other than 'Umar. You say suspension.

The questioner : Let us say both cases...

The Shaykh : Name one of the two cases, and you know it?

The questioner : If it is temporary?

The Shaykh : Of course, temporary.

The questioner : So, it is permissible for the mujtahids in a certain time, as a result of public benefit, to freeze the text as long as that emergency exists. It is permissible.

Another questioner : Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, brought the text to be general and comprehensive, and there is no change except in the two cases...
Al-Halabi : There is no contradiction between the two parties...

The questioner : How so, when the Muslims change and alter?

The Shaykh : No, it is not alteration. Alteration is overthrowing a text by a legal ruling and replacing it with something else; that is alteration. But if you, as the ruling scholar, see that there are circumstances preventing you from implementing this text, you suspend it temporarily, and you are determined, as 'Ali mentioned earlier, that some judges—what do the legal experts call them?—wish to implement the legal rulings. So this Muslim supreme ruler finds circumstances in which he is unable to apply a legal ruling and wishes that these circumstances disappear overnight, but he applies it fully. This is not called suspension, nor is it called abrogation. But the one who says that Islam has passed and ended on that day—that is the position of the group you are referring to; what do we have to do with them? And now, regarding the issue of shaking hands, what has happened that we should suspend the ruling on shaking hands? It means a lack of religion.

The questioner : 'Umar's abrogation, if it is correct.

The Shaykh : No, beware, beware. Do not say, my brother, abrogation... Say, my brother, non-implementation, its postponement, making it clear to his brother.

The questioner : The intention is not abrogation in the sense of...

The Shaykh : We do not know except for the good intention, but we...

The questioner : Non-implementation, up to cutting off the hand of the thief in the Year of the Famine, that was a time...

The Shaykh : Now we have a Prophetic text This opens the door we are talking about. This does not mean that it abrogated the known ruling...

The questioner : He exercised ijtihad based on another text...

The Shaykh : Who exercised ijtihad?

The questioner : The one who wants to open the door for us.

The Shaykh : Meaning, he must be a mujtahid, he must be knowledgeable of the Book and the Sunnah, knowing when the implementation of the text can be suspended for a specific time. What did we say? What is your opinion on ijtihad? Ijtihad does not have the rigid constraints that ignorant people say, "This is ijtihad and this is a mujtahid." No, I see it this way; matters that involve precision...

The questioner : Personally, what is in my mind is that ijtihad does not occur unless a new matter arises, and the person returns to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So even his ijtihad is based on his reliance on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). I do not conceive, absolutely, that there is ijtihad in a matter that has a legal ruling. What I understand is that even ijtihad is permissible in the presence of the text; in our case, it has become permissible and possible even in the presence of the text due to circumstances...

The Shaykh : You forgot something you brought as a condition for the one who preceded you in this...