The Jurisprudence of the Hadith (And drive them to the narrowest of the roads)

Abu Layla : Shaykh, the jurisprudence of the hadith: If you would permit it, Shaykh, please explain to us the jurisprudence of this hadith?

The Shaykh : This, unfortunately, is a day when the Muslims will have their honor and glory, and all the disbelievers will live under the Islamic system, which includes that they pay the jizyah from the hand while they are humbled. And among what is mentioned in this hadith is: The Islamic system will be in place at that time, not today, because today, with great regret, the ruled, let alone the rulers, have been raised with a non-Islamic upbringing in many of the rulings of the sacred law. Among these is that they have removed names that indicate meanings and designations in the Islamic law. They removed these names so that they would not remind them of these designations, because they do not fit the social situation. For example, we often warn Muslims when they have turned away from the word riba (usury or interest) and replaced it with "profit." They used the word "profit" in place of riba. And now, among the terms they have first removed and secondly replaced with others is the word: "citizen." The word "citizen" means not distinguishing between the Jew, the Christian, the disbeliever, the atheist, the Ba'athist, the communist, and so on. "Citizen." And you find this language common among Muslims. When someone connects with the radio in a live broadcast, he says: "I am a citizen." He does not say "I am a Muslim," let alone say "I am a Jew" or "I am a Christian." "I am a citizen." This is obscuring the legal realities, and people do not notice it. So when society reaches this decline in not feeling the Islamic honor that our ancestors had, at that time, even if some Muslims feel their honor, unfortunately they cannot implement many of the rulings of their religion. Among these is:
The Shaykh : The meaning of "the narrowest of the roads." The roads at that time were not as wide and spacious as those seen today, especially in the capitals. Some roads in some villages still remind us of those roads that did not have this width and spaciousness. So his saying (peace be upon him): The Muslim, until recently, I knew people in Syria who used to narrate that if a Muslim met a Jew in Damascus, for example, he would say to him: "Tariq," meaning "move aside from the main road and take the side." I knew this word, this term: "Tariq," which was taken from the road mentioned in the hadith: But today, with great regret, if one of us wanted to implement this, the legal system would stand between him and it, and consider him an aggressor against the citizen.
The Shaykh : And this indication, with great regret, and the speech, as they say, has many threads that pull one another. The indication of "citizen," meaning the use of this word instead of "dhimmi" (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection) and giving him the same rights as the Muslim, is one of the effects of weak and fabricated hadiths. If I forget, I will not forget that I was reading in the magazine Al-Muslimun, which was published in Cairo during the height of the Muslim Brotherhood there, and they published lectures in it. Hassan al-Banna (may Allah have mercy on him) and his companions, such as Sa'id Ramadan and others, used to lecture us. They spoke about the justice of Islam and its wonderful stance toward those who differ from Muslims, meaning the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab). They wanted to pave the way for the establishment of Islamic rule without finding opposition from the Jews and Christians, because they had known that Islam does not diminish any of their rights. Those rights in which the dhimmi is equal to the Muslim. So in their lectures, supporting this erroneous call, even though the intention was to reach the establishment of Islamic rule, but as I say in many of these occasions: "Sa'd led them, and Sa'd was wrapped in his cloak *** This is not, O Sa'd, how you lead the camels." It is not possible for Muslims to establish the state of Islam by changing the rulings of Islam, but by explaining them to the people, and then it is said with complete freedom: One of the changes is that the educated society today, with modern culture and not legal culture, and especially the correct legal culture based on the Book, the Sunnah, and the methodology of the Salaf (the earliest generations), no, I say this youth educated with a general modern culture has become prepared to establish the Muslim state on the condition that the Jews and Christians have the same rights as the Muslims. Why?
The Shaykh : Because they have been taught since the softness of their nails in their universities and associations, and by the heads of these associations, their saying: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab): If there is no difference between a Muslim and a Jew, if the word "citizen" unites us. And this is one of the most false hadiths spoken by some Islamic preachers until today. Because this hadith, in this context, meaning that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said this phrase: regarding the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) of Jews and Christians, this has no basis in any of the books of the people of the Sunnah and the community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah). And from this, the danger of receiving Islam from the inherited books of jurisprudence (fiqh) becomes apparent to you, especially those that were late in composition, because they contain many hadiths that are not valid. And for this reason, some of the preservers of hadith and its scholars undertook the tracing (takhrij) of these books of jurisprudence as advice to the Muslim community (ummah). But among these educated people today, who lecture in public and private gatherings, who combined the study of comparative jurisprudence with the study of hadiths and distinguishing their authentic from their weak, so that they do not fall into such an abomination as attributing to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) what he did not say. They found the previous hadith in a book of Hanafi jurisprudence known as Al-Hidayah, which has the commentary: Fath al-Qadir by Ibn al-Humam, the Hanafi, Egyptian, from Alexandria. The one who traced this book, Al-Hidayah, and he is the Hafiz al-Zayla'i, in his book called Nasb al-Raayah li Ahadith al-Hidayah, said: This is a strange hadith. And this is a term specific to al-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him), which he used exclusively, differing from the known old terminology. If the scholars of hadith say of a hadith that it is a "strange hadith," they mean its chain of narration (isnad) is strange, so beware of it. They do not say of a hadith that has no chain that it is a "strange hadith," but rather they say it has no basis. Al-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him) came, and because of his sharing in following the school of this book, Al-Hidayah, he was lenient with the author. So whenever a hadith with no basis passed him, he said of it: "A strange hadith." The hadith about the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) and that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said about them: The author of Al-Hidayah mentioned it, and al-Zayla'i said it is a strange hadith. If these lecturers who transmit this hadith from Al-Hidayah had read the words of al-Zayla'i, they would have known in any case that this hadith has no basis, because they do not know the terminology of al-Zayla'i. But they knew that it is a strange hadith, meaning not authentic. But they are in one world and the books of hadith are in another. Add to what I mentioned that this hadith has no basis like this, that it is a distortion of an authentic hadith. The authentic hadith says the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said to one of the leaders of the army when he equipped him and appointed him as its leader: If: If they become like us, Muslims, meaning. And therefore, unfortunately, the effects of these hadiths continue to do their work, and gnaw at the body of the nation without them feeling or knowing.