It is known that time evolves and changes, and with its evolution new things arise, such as dealing with banks and judging by other than what Allah has revealed. What is the correct and sound position for the Muslim?

The Shaykh : Go ahead, what do you have?

The questioner : May Allah reward you, O Shaykh. Shaykh, this is a somewhat practical question regarding the Salafi perspective on the problems of the modern era. Of course, as you know, time evolves and many new problems arise for people that did not exist in the era of the predecessors. When a problem comes and we hear solutions or the independent legal reasoning of the jurists, we always see that the independent legal reasoning of our Salafi brothers is, in terms of making things easy for people...

The Shaykh : In terms of what?

The questioner : In terms of making the matter easy for people. You see them at the end of the list. In other words...

The Shaykh : I did not understand. Pardon me, I did not understand the word. In terms of what?

The questioner : Facilitating the matter or solving this dilemma.

The Shaykh : Ah, in terms of facilitation. Fine.

The questioner : You see that the solutions proposed by various jurists... you see that the Salafi solution...

The Shaykh : Contains strictness.

The questioner : It contains strictness. So, if we know and understand that the problems of the current era cannot make a qualitative leap from the dilemma they are in to perfection, meaning, if we want to establish an Islamic bank, we cannot place it one hundred percent in accordance with Islamic principles of dealing, due to the entanglement of the commercial issue with other usurious laws. So you see that the solutions of our Salafi brothers always come as traditional, wanting Islam to be one hundred percent, which places them at the bottom of the ranks in terms of the solution. Consequently, many people do not adopt it, and they are accused of strictness. Does this not mean that when we look at these issues in terms of analogical reasoning and independent legal reasoning, we should consider this leap, and consider the importance of giving this institution or this problem the opportunity for the proposed temporary solutions until they bear fruit?

The Shaykh : I do not know if my understanding of the explanation you presented is correct or incorrect. I mean: do you want to say that this is done even by committing what Allah has forbidden?

The questioner : Not in that sense of committing, but there are many necessities in matters. I mean, when it comes to establishing an Islamic bank...

The Shaykh : No, no. Do not repeat your words if you please. Rather, you are answering my question.

The questioner : Fine. How, in reality, does one commit the forbidden? A person does not want to commit what is in it. A Muslim is a scholar qualified to derive rulings.

The Shaykh : No problem, no problem. You are not giving a lecture now; it is an answer to a question. If it is by committing the forbidden, say yes, or say no.

The questioner : No, it is not by committing the forbidden.

The Shaykh : Then, then, what is the difference between those who facilitate and those you describe as strict? Do those who facilitate mean they have settled on facilitation even if this facilitation is contrary to the Shari'ah, and these strict ones have settled on strictness even if it is in accordance with the Shari'ah, or is the matter the opposite?

The questioner : I do not think our jurist brothers look at it through this lens. Rather, it is a matter of you being in a problem with several solutions, and it is not possible to make a leap...

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, Professor Adel. You are repeating your words. I agree with you and I sign in blank: the transition cannot happen in one leap; because Islam did not come this way, correct or not?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : But I fear this statement because I have heard it from others, and I hope not to hear it from you. Therefore, I verify by asking: some may see today a gradual approach in the prohibition of intoxicants, as happened in the first era, and on that basis, compare other Islamic rulings. I think you do not mean this.

The questioner : Definitely.

The Shaykh : Then, if you do not mean this, what do you mean? I do not know. As for me, I understand the matter as follows: those whom you or others think facilitate for people by transgressing the limits of Allah, under the name of a general rule they apply in a place where it does not belong: "Make things easy and do not make them difficult." And I give you a very simple example in acts of worship, in acts of worship; because it is a clear matter. The Ministries of Endowments in the Islamic world today are all similar, though some are better than others, some are worse than others. You know, for example, that the recommended practice in recitation in the Fajr prayer is to lengthen it, unlike the other prayers with the known difference in the recommended practice between them. If there is an imam who is somewhat eager to apply the recommended practice, he reads for the people in the Fajr prayer less than the recommended practice, thirty verses. Immediately, a complaint is raised by some of the lazy ones—may Allah have mercy on you—and you should, despite being fully directed toward me, as I am fully directed toward you, say to him, may Allah have mercy on you. Do you know why? Because responding to the sneezer is an individual obligation.

The questioner : It is obligatory upon everyone who hears.

The Shaykh : Yes—May Allah reward you—it is an individual obligation. And this is one of the unknown rulings in this time. But if you do not respond to me, I leave you to Allah—not me, I mean. (Laughter)The Shaykh : May Allah have mercy on him. Fine.
The point is: a man from the lazy ones who prays behind the imam who reads less than the recommended practice, files a complaint with the Endowments that so-and-so is lengthening it for us. What comes from the Endowments? He said, peace and blessings be upon him: "O Muslims, you are imams, you are such and such": and the like. This is playing with the texts. And they do the same with financial rulings exactly. They take some general texts and leave the specific texts that he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: He said that on the occasion of a complaint issued by one of them regarding an imam who was Mu'adh ibn Jabal, when he began with Surat al-Baqarah in the 'Isha' prayer, not in the Fajr prayer, and behind him was a young man from the Ansar. He cut off the prayer, prayed alone, and left. Mu'adh sensed it, so he started to criticize him, saying, "This is a hypocrite." Mu'adh's excuse was that he left the congregational prayer. Allah is the Greatest! One prayer and he became a hypocrite! Look at how they weighed matters. Now, one who does not pray at all, no one calls him a hypocrite. He prays, but no one sees him in the mosque. No one calls him a hypocrite, and so on.
This reached the ears of this Ansari, the cursing of Mu'adh for him, so he complained to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He said: "O Messenger of Allah, we are owners of clear land, we work during the day, then we come to pray behind Mu'adh, and he lengthens the recitation for us in the prayer." So he sent for him, and he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: This was in the 'Isha' prayer. Then he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: If an imam in the 'Isha' prayer read like the Messenger lightened, the public would say, "You lengthened it for us," and they would file a complaint with the ministry. The ministry would come and take the side of the hadith: Meaning, it is up to them. As for the lightening restricted by the recommended practice, they give it no weight. Why? Because the goal is "Make things easy and do not make them difficult." Do you understand me now?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine. This is an example that falls exactly into the usurious transactions today on which the banks called Islamic banks are established. Islamic banks are a modern phenomenon in reality, and they have not changed fundamentally except by the signboard. And many of the rulings do not meet except with some stray opinions that are outside, not only from the Book and the Sunnah, but from the opinions of the imams—may Allah have mercy on you—held by some of the followers of the imams who are not scholars qualified to derive rulings. And when it is said of a person that he is not a scholar qualified to derive rulings, that equals, in the language of the true scholars, that he is ignorant. The learned man who is called a scholar but is not a scholar qualified to derive rulings, meaning he does not derive the rulings by which he first worships Allah, and secondly, by which people are made to worship, but rather from "so-and-so said and so-and-so said." This is called, in the language of the scholars, ignorant. Even if his turban is like a tower, and his robe is like a sack, he is not a scholar. They say in the book of judgment: "And it is not permissible to follow the ignorant." He said in the explanation, meaning the follower, "It is not permissible to follow the ignorant," meaning in judgment.
Al-Halabi : Do you mean his appointment, our Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Yes, the appointment, yes. The judge must be a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings), and it is not permissible for him to be a muqallid (one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence); because the muqallid is ignorant. And this is correct. May Allah have mercy on Ibn Rushd al-Andalusi, he gave a wonderful example. He said: The example of the muqallid and the mujtahid is like the example of the maker of slippers and the seller of slippers. The example of the mujtahid and the muqallid is like the maker of slippers and the seller of slippers. A man comes with a measurement for a strange leg, which might be, for example, short and thick, and one is looking at his leg, right?—he laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him)—do you see it is thick, short, and fat? He goes to the seller of slippers and looks at these various, diverse measurements, but he does not find one. So he says to him, "Excuse me, I do not have this measurement." But he goes to the maker of slippers, and he takes the measurement perfectly, cuts it out, and finds it perfect. This is the example of the muqallid, and this is the example of the mujtahid.
The mujtahid is the one who is saturated with the texts of the Book and the Sunnah that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) revealed to be, as our preachers, orators, and guides boast about, while they do not know this reality with actual knowledge. They boast that Islam is suitable for every time and place, and this is correct. But because of their ignorance of this reality, they are now—and here is the point—distorting... with the requirements of the time. And from here comes the ease. The ease did not come because the group studied the Book and studied the Sunnah and found in them evidence that eases for them some of the transactions they are forced to deal with today. Therefore, my brother, we should not think that people we see are actually being strict because they are applying the rulings of the Shari'ah; and we should not be surprised by people who are lenient because they are lenient. We must know whether these who are strict are doing so through their own ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), or is it their holding fast to the texts of their Lord's Book and the Sunnah of their Prophet? If it is holding fast, then this is the obligation of every Muslim. Likewise, those people who are said to be lenient: are they being lenient with evidence they present to people from the Book and the Sunnah? Or are these just opinions?
We know from the books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) wonders of matters, great wonders. And I once met with the president of the Islamic Bank. What is his name? He has a book on this.
Al-Halabi : Salih Kamel.

The Shaykh : The one who founded the Islamic Bank, perhaps... He has a book that I saw. The point is, I learned from it how he established the Islamic Bank. He established it on ta'lif (compilation from different sources). Whenever he found an opinion in one of the madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence) that eases a riba (usury or interest) transaction, he adopted that opinion and made it a system and a rule. And he did not bring anything, really, he did not bring anything. And modern or contemporary history testifies that one of the scholars of al-Azhar in the time of the Khedive of Egypt said to him: "Put down any law you want, and we are ready to support this law with Shari'ah texts from our scholars." And this is correct. Why?
I will give a real example now: Is there a radio station in Saudi Arabia, and you are coming down, that broadcasts what is agreed upon as forbidden by the four schools of jurisprudence from entertainments and songs? The answer is: No, there is no such radio station—regrettably. Is there no one who issues a fatwa (a scholarly legal ruling) permitting these songs today? There is someone who issues a fatwa. What is his basis for that? He is close to you, and perhaps far from you, our brother and friend Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa regarding that British man who became Muslim and was a singer. Do you remember his name?
Al-Halabi : Yusuf Islam.

The Shaykh : Yes, Yusuf Islam. He issued a fatwa for him to continue in his profession. Why? He said: Because there is no definitive text. That is what he says. There is no definitive text forbidding musical instruments. Therefore, he does not see any harm in this British Muslim continuing to practice the profession of singing, and eating and supporting himself and his family. This is a fatwa issued by this man, and much like this, a great deal. If you ask him for the proof, he says, "My brother, the matter is disputed. This is Ibn Hazm, who wrote a treatise on the permissibility of entertainments." And this is correct.
One of the smart scholars said: "I am confused in my affair. If I am, for example, a Salafi (a follower of the Salaf), they say I am a mushabbih (one who likens Allah to creation). If I say I am a Hanafi, they say I permit intoxicants. If I say I am a Zahiri, they say I permit singing. And if I say..." and so on.
He is indicating that every school of jurisprudence has what it has, which is not permissible for a Muslim to adopt, especially a scholar. So today, the solution to problems in banks and other banks, in rulings, in what they call personal status, is all solved by what? Ta'lif (compilation from different sources). He takes a word from here and a word from here and a word from here. He is not a Hanafi, he is not a Shafi'i, he is not a Maliki, and he is not a Hanbali, but he follows all four. Do you understand, 'Ali? He follows all four.
As for one who tells you, "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said," this is what these strict people do. So do not be surprised, for among what came in Islam is: This is a characteristic that is fully realized today in these strangers. Likewise, another characteristic:
In short, if we take the principle of ease in this absolute way, it is a cause for leaving Islam in the name of Islam. And perhaps you will agree with me that the most extreme of these modern people today, who are called scholars, in their leniency, is Muhammad al-Ghazali. Does that mean he is correct and on the right path and in the right?
The answer is no. Because this does not give weight to the Sunnah. And we used to see from him glimpses that we feared from, but now the veil has been lifted. And he has revealed what he was concealing. So this is the most extreme of these contemporaries today in leniency, but at the expense of the texts that contradict the ease he claims. Therefore, we advise every Muslim not to be deceived by something called ease and something called strictness, but rather he should try to understand the Shari'ah, whether it agrees with his desire or contradicts it. This is it. And I am pleased with the hadiths narrated by Imam Muslim in his Sahih from Rafi' ibn Khadij. He says in the hadith of sharecropping that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade us from something that was in our interest, but obedience to Allah is better for us, or as he said; do you see? This is Islam. He forbade them from a type of sharecropping, in which they had interests...