Do we understand from your words that you only consider the interests of the innovator without looking at the public interest?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : But I have
The Shaykh : a question.
The questioner : Regarding boycotting the innovator.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : It appears from what I heard that you are considering the interest of the innovator himself?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And you do not deny the principle of boycotting?
The Shaykh : We do not deny... this is obligatory, how could boycotting be otherwise.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, do you not notice that in our statement that boycotting the innovator is not permissible, we considered his interest, the interest of this innovator? That is, we did not consider the interest of the general public, who may be misled by this Salafi scholar or imam or such a person associating with this innovator and mixing with him, so they are influenced and think that he is not upon an innovation, and thus they are misled by influence? Then there is another matter.
The Shaykh : Let us set aside the other matter and look at the first one. These issues, truly, my brother, in terms of practical application, require precise knowledge and precise practical application. So now, you gave the example of a scholar who mixes with the innovator, so the general public sees him and thinks well of this innovator. Did you imagine that this scholar is being hypocritical?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So, if you imagine the opposite, as I hope, I can say you imagine that he is refuting his innovation, that he is advising him, that he is admonishing him. If that is the case, where does the danger come from for the general people when they hear him advising him and reminding him, and so on? So the danger you are hinting at and pointing to is only for the one who is being hypocritical, not for the one who refutes in the best manner. So there is a difference between one scholar and another. In other words, the one who says he follows them and remains silent about their innovations and misguidance, and this is tolerance. We deny this. There must be clarification. And I think the time is up.
The Shaykh : a question.
The questioner : Regarding boycotting the innovator.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : It appears from what I heard that you are considering the interest of the innovator himself?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : And you do not deny the principle of boycotting?
The Shaykh : We do not deny... this is obligatory, how could boycotting be otherwise.
The questioner : Our Shaykh, do you not notice that in our statement that boycotting the innovator is not permissible, we considered his interest, the interest of this innovator? That is, we did not consider the interest of the general public, who may be misled by this Salafi scholar or imam or such a person associating with this innovator and mixing with him, so they are influenced and think that he is not upon an innovation, and thus they are misled by influence? Then there is another matter.
The Shaykh : Let us set aside the other matter and look at the first one. These issues, truly, my brother, in terms of practical application, require precise knowledge and precise practical application. So now, you gave the example of a scholar who mixes with the innovator, so the general public sees him and thinks well of this innovator. Did you imagine that this scholar is being hypocritical?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So, if you imagine the opposite, as I hope, I can say you imagine that he is refuting his innovation, that he is advising him, that he is admonishing him. If that is the case, where does the danger come from for the general people when they hear him advising him and reminding him, and so on? So the danger you are hinting at and pointing to is only for the one who is being hypocritical, not for the one who refutes in the best manner. So there is a difference between one scholar and another. In other words, the one who says he follows them and remains silent about their innovations and misguidance, and this is tolerance. We deny this. There must be clarification. And I think the time is up.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.