A word about those who oppose the Sunnah, such as al-Kawthari and al-Ghazali, and their mockery of the Sunnah, and what is their ruling in Islam.

The questioner : Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. And after you have spoken, may Allah reward you with good, regarding those who oppose the Sunnah. I will give some examples and ask you questions, if Allah wills, the Lord of the Worlds.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : The one called Zuhayr al-Kawthari, and I always call him the deceased, says: "It is agreed upon," and this is a comment on the authentic hadith narrated by Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) and al-Bayhaqi and others: He placed a mark of one and said: "The people agreed that creation did not occur on Saturday, and that the beginning of creation was on Sunday, as al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Qadir al-Qurashi mentioned in his *Jami'* from his *Tabaqat*, criticizing Muslim in his tracing of the hadith to the end. Then Imam al-Bayhaqi transmitted this. I am reading to you from his comments on the book of Imam al-Bayhaqi."

The Shaykh : Yes, yes.

The questioner : Yes, he says in a hadith or in a verse: regarding the professor Abu Bakr ibn Furuk, if this is authentic...

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Yes, he said: "But he means the meaning of the saying of Allah, Mighty and Majestic: meaning from above it. He also placed a mark of two on this word, and this is taking the verse away from its apparent meaning without a cause. Let it be that the one in the sky is the one who destroyed Sodom by the command of Allah."

The Shaykh : Meaning the angels.

The questioner : Glory be to Allah. Yes, and Abu Bakr ibn Furuk, despite his high status in the science of the principles of religion, often his arrow flies off in the chapter of figurative interpretation.

The Shaykh : A verse. Yes.

The questioner : This is one. Second, the one who has not yet appeared, and he is the one currently in Egypt, Muhammad al-Ghazali, says: "Many of the hadith scholars do not know jurisprudence." He gives an example of those who do not know jurisprudence by referring to your excellencies. He says, "Muhammad, for example, Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, who authenticates the hadith: This is in the newspaper *Al-Muslimun*, issue 256."

Another questioner : Old.

The questioner :

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : He claims, or alleges, may Allah bless his mouth, that you do not have jurisprudence because you authenticated this hadith. And he says, "If I found a defect in a hadith, for example: "

The Shaykh : Muslim with a disbeliever.

The questioner : Yes. He said, "If I found a decisive defect in this hadith, what would I do?" They asked the two who were debating him, "What is this defect?" He said, "If an Arab Muslim killed an American or Jewish engineer, what would I do? Would I apply this hadith?"

The Shaykh : No

The questioner : He considers this a defect.

The Shaykh : It is not applied.

The questioner : Yes, and finally.

The Shaykh : Because he is American.

The questioner : Ha, because he is American. Yes, he also says in his speech...

The Shaykh : I seek refuge in Allah

The questioner : One of the editors asked him.

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar.

The questioner : He conducted an interview with him. Yes, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : He conducted an interview with him in the magazine *Al-Sharq al-Awsat*, issue 173, on October 18, 1989. He says, "I understand from that that you like jokes and laugh at them." He said, "Yes, I like jokes and laugh at them with all my heart." So the editor said to him, "Do you memorize a joke or more? Tell us one." He said, "There is a joke I loved very much about our religious, strict brothers. It says: A religious, strict man was seen with boxing gloves in his hands, and he was asked, 'What is this?' He said, 'I use it to straighten the rows.'" The editor says, "We spent time laughing with him." And he continues, with his excellence or his disgrace, the story, and he is laughing. "A man came to me and saw a group..."

The Shaykh :

The questioner : Yes, by Allah, I will complete it for you, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, yes.

The questioner : "A man came to me and saw a group of sticks hanging. This means he keeps sticks on the wall of his house, and I like laughing at our strict religious brothers. So this man said, 'What are these sticks, O Shaykh?' I said to him, 'These are visual aids. I took them from the door of our strict brothers, and they teach people Islam with them.'" My question is: What is the ruling in Islam of the deceased and the current misguider, and they mock the Sunnah and reject it based on their intellect, and due to their foolishness they reject the Sunnah, and yet they say about the people of the Sunnah that they are the misguided ones? So may Allah reward you with good. What is their ruling in Islam, al-Kawthari and al-Ghazali? What is their ruling in Islam? And my second question is that in this debate in the newspaper *Al-Muslimun*, more than once it was said that Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) used to take analogical reasoning and give it preference over a report from a single narrator, and that Malik used to give preference to the practice of the people of Madinah over a report from a single narrator. So we need an answer to these two questions. May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. You are a man who is hungry.

Another questioner : I have eaten dinner, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Your answers require an evening session.

Another questioner : Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh : A special evening session.

The questioner : That is what we want.

The Shaykh : First, I say: And I hope from all our brothers present, especially those who are students of knowledge, that they do not be taken by emotion and not be carried away by it so that it plunges them into a deep valley contrary to what they intend in holding fast to the Book and the Sunnah. The Book and the Sunnah contain justice and wisdom. And the verse with which I began my answer first is the one that suits the occasion in which I am about to speak and answer some of those questions that came in what we heard from the speech of this one whom the Muslims are afflicted with today, called Muhammad al-Ghazali. I say: And in order to be with this verse and not upon it and not contrary to it, I want you to distinguish with me between the one who rejects the Sunnah in its entirety and in detail, and the one who rejects parts of it or individuals of it. The one who rejects the Sunnah in its entirety and in detail is a disbeliever who does not believe in Allah and His Messenger, and if he claims that he believes in Allah and His Messenger, then he is only a hypocrite who says with his tongue what is not in his heart. But it is not so with the one who rejects few or many hadiths from the Sunnah, but in reality he believes in the much good of it. So in my firm belief, it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever. It is sufficient for us that we rule on his misguidance. It is sufficient for us that we rule on his misguidance, because the one who first rejects a hadith from the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), if he is from the people of knowledge of hadith, and pay attention well so that you are truly jurists, even in one issue like this issue, if a man rejects a hadith and says, "This hadith is not authentic, it is weak or fabricated," and his rejection is based on the rules of the hadith scholars, then first of all, it is not permissible to declare him a disbeliever, nor is it permissible to declare him misguided. Rather, we must reward him and give him good reward, because he is a mujtahid. And you know his saying (peace be upon him): This is the ruling of the one who rejects a hadith, and this hadith is in reality authentic, but the rejecter did not see its authenticity based on the rules of the hadith scholars. So he is rewarded, not blamed. Another level: A man among the people rejects a hadith, and he is not from the people of hadith, nor from the people of jurisprudence and knowledge, but he is from the common people. How did he reject the hadith? He asked a Shaykh whom he thought was a scholar, "What is your opinion?"The Shaykh : "In this hadith?" He said to him: "No, this hadith is invalid, this hadith is fabricated." So this common man believed what he heard from that person.The Shaykh : So this is not a sinner. The research returns to...The Shaykh : So the three stages are applied to him. Whichever one is true for him, meaning if he rejects the Sunnah in its entirety and in detail, then in summary he rejected this hadith for this...The questioner : Or he believes in the Sunnah as a principle, but he rejected a hadith that is not from the method of the scholars of the people of hadith, but from the method of desire, so he is a wrongdoer as we mentioned earlier. Or he rejected the hadith based on scientific ijtihad from himself, so you have known these levels. It is necessary that they be firmly in our minds and that we always review them. We must judge al-Kawthari and al-Ghazali and those who follow their path in rejecting hadiths. I distinguish greatly between al-Kawthari and al-Ghazali. Al-Kawthari, in truth, and I say this based on the previous verse: This...The Shaykh : Zayd al-Kawthari was, in his time, the one I would say was the most knowledgeable person on earth regarding hadith, specifically in terms of terminology and the narrators. He may not have had extensive knowledge of the texts of hadith and the routes of hadith, or the ability to judge every hadith as authentic or weak, which his vast scholarly insight and long, extensive knowledge would require, due to his residence in the capital of Islam at that time, which was Istanbul. There, there are manuscript hadith books that no human mind could have imagined. This man, if I may say so, was the most knowledgeable person of his time with this specific qualification; he was undoubtedly among the most knowledgeable people of his time. However, Allah misled him despite his knowledge. That is, he did not benefit from his knowledge of hadith, its narrators, and its books. This is because two afflictions dominated him: the first affliction was sectarian bias, and the second affliction was *sha'biyyah* (nationalism), which is the opposite of Arabism, meaning the Arabs themselves. From this, the man was overcome. Therefore, you will find a very, very serious deviation in his creed and in the Sunnah, in the hadiths. As for al-Ghazali, he is neither in the caravan nor in the raid, as the saying goes. He knows nothing of the science of hadith. For him, hadith is his desire. For him, hadith is his desire. For him, hadith is his intellect. And if only his intellect had been the intellect of a person who reached the highest degree of perfection, and that is only for one person: Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So if you hear criticism from this man of a hadith from the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), such as the hadith that was recited to us and in our hearing just now, the hadith "If it were not for the Children of Israel" and "If it were not for Eve," he accuses the one who authenticated this hadith, and he called al-Albani "Ya Ash" (a derogatory term), saying he has no jurisprudence. I say, first of all, if only he had accused al-Albani, for he is a non-Arab, perhaps of pure non-Arab origin. I am also a non-Arab. If he had accused only me of lacking jurisprudence, the matter would have been easier. He is a person, a Muslim. But I did not authenticate this hadith alone. This hadith is narrated in the *Sahih*. I think it is now either in al-Bukhari or Muslim.
The questioner: al-Bukhari and Muslim.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is it. I am being cautious now. So it is narrated in the *Sahih*. So he is not criticizing al-Albani, but he is criticizing al-Bukhari, who is the predecessor of al-Albani, and he is criticizing the Ummah that accepted this hadith. No one rejected this hadith except one who is like him in his irrational methodology. And I do not say he is rational, because these people who reject hadiths with their intellects do not have sound intellects. Therefore, in reality, I consider this man a caller to misguidance. But I do not have the scholarly boldness that would allow me or help me to declare him a disbeliever. Because the hardest thing for a Muslim scholar is to declare a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah a disbeliever, and who does not deny a matter known from the religion by necessity. Therefore, I distinguish between one who denies the Sunnah, and these exist today, and they are the ones who call themselves Quranists. These people originated in Pakistan, the source of the claimant to prophethood that I mentioned to you just now. Then their evil spread to Egypt, and then some of their evil moved to Syria. I met some of them and discussed and debated with them. These people deny the Sunnah. And if one denies the Sunnah, there is no difference between him and a Christian, or a Jew, or a Baha'i, or an atheist. All of these people interpret the Quran according to their desires. Therefore, whoever denies the Sunnah as a principle is a disbeliever. As for one who denies parts of the Sunnah, it is the previous detail that I mentioned, which you must keep in mind. And now I will give a very brief detail. If a person believes in a hadith that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, a single hadith, he believes that the Messenger (peace be upon him) said it, and yet he says, "This hadith did not enter my mind, and I do not believe in it," then he is a disbeliever. Why? Because he combined two opposites. On one hand, he believed that the Messenger spoke this hadith, and on the other hand, he said it did not enter his mind, so he denies it. But another person, like this al-Ghazali, I cannot say that the first person is al-Ghazali. He says, "The Messenger said this hadith, and I do not believe in it." Nothing of this has appeared from him in what we know. But he doubts the authenticity of this hadith that al-Bukhari narrated, and he hints at one of the narrators. "Oh brother, is al-Bukhari infallible? Is al-Albani infallible? Are the sheikhs of the Salaf infallible?" The answer is no, no. So he denies the hadith without believing that the Messenger said it. So from this, he escapes the declaration of disbelief that a Muslim scholar may direct at a Muslim like this al-Ghazali. But he is misguided. Why? Because the truth is that these people who are mentioned today among the callers to Islam, and we thank Allah that they are not lumped in with the callers to the Book and the Sunnah.

The questioner : Allahu Akbar.
The Shaykh: But rather to Islam. But is this Islam Shia? Is it Khariji? Is it Ibadi? Is it such and such? All of it is Islam. They call to Islam, but is it truly Islam? Is it the Islam of the Salaf? Is it the Islam of the Khalaf? Is it British Islam? Is it American Islam? Islam, if it is not important to be a Muslim caller to Islam, and let us say to Islam, but rather what is important is that he calls to the Book and the Sunnah. And it is not enough that he calls to the Book and the Sunnah, but rather what is important is that he calls to the Book and the Sunnah according to the methodology of the righteous Salaf. So we distinguish between two men. One denies a hadith and believes in the depths of his heart that the Messenger said it, then he does not believe in it. He is like the Jews: So he is a disbeliever. And another man does not believe that the Messenger said it. He has doubt for one reason or another that this hadith that Zayd and Bakr and 'Umar, scholars of hadith, authenticated, and they erred in authenticating it. So he criticizes those who authenticated it, not the Prophet who said it. So I said just now: This is a misguided person and not a disbeliever like the first one. What is the cause of his misguidance? This man and his like deny some of our brothers, and I am with them. Pay attention, they deny some of our brothers, and I am with them, who are hasty, and they are from the general Muslims. He says, "I understand from such and such a hadith this." He is not a scholar and not a student of knowledge, but he says, "Like this, I understand, oh brother, and I like this, I exerted my judgment." Well, what do you have of the people of ijtihad? And al-Ghazali was afflicted with people like these, so he attributed ignorance to others, the talented in knowledge and the specialists in the Book and the Sunnah and the jurisprudence of the righteous Salaf. So he accused them of having no jurisprudence. Yes, this al-Ghazali and his like deny these people because they obligate upon them what we obligate upon them, starting from the saying of Allah the Exalted: This al-Ghazali and his like fell into what they deny in others. Al-Ghazali is illiterate in the science of hadith, just as the illiterate is in the science of jurisprudence. So what al-Ghazali denies in the illiterate who claims jurisprudence in a verse or in a hadith, he also refutes when he authenticates and weakens, and he is illiterate in the science of hadith. So he contradicted the saying of Allah the Exalted: He and everyone who has an atom of knowledge and jurisprudence acknowledges and testifies to a reality that there is no room for denying it: that the sciences, in their types and forms, whether they are sciences in the Shari'ah, or in literature, or in language, or in history, all these sciences refer to the specialists. So it is not permissible for one ignorant of medicine to practice medicine, and it is not permissible for one ignorant of jurisprudence to engage in jurisprudence, and consequently, it is not permissible for one ignorant of hadith to speak in terms of authenticating and weakening. This is what al-Ghazali fell into; he denied it in others, so he fell into what he denies in the general public, and he is from the elite. And the sin of the elite is more severe with Allah the Mighty and Majestic than the sin of the general public. For this reason, I say: Al-Ghazali, without doubt, lives in clear misguidance, because as Allah the Exalted said regarding the polytheists: That is, he denied what is established: that the sciences are specializations, and that these ignorant people do not elevate themselves and dominate the Book and the Sunnah while they do not understand anything. This is what he denied in the general public, and he fell into what the general public fell into, whom he denies, because he does not know. And he may debate some of them in that. So I remind you with the example of the reality that no one can deny. I, before I knew him through someone who was among my acquaintances, and even among my companions, and Allah the Mighty and Majestic saved him from the Shadhiliyyah order and from the bias for the Hanafi school, and he isThe Shaykh : Zuhayr al-Najjar, you know this man well. He sent me a message from Egypt. He was with us in Syria, and he was a Hanafi, a rigid traditionalist, and a Qadiri Shadhili. Then Allah guided him to the Sunnah. He then traveled to Egypt and entered al-Azhar and obtained his degree. He wrote to me thatThe Shaykh : al-Ghazali has a book called *Fiqh al-Sirah*. So he asked me to volunteer to trace the hadiths in his book. I was at that time somewhat free and more energetic than usualThe Shaykh : as you can see, so I agreed.

The questioner : May Allah bless you, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : He wrote an introduction, which you have probably read. So why did he burden me with tracing his book? Because he is not a specialist in hadith. So why does he presume to deal with the science of hadith, authenticating and weakening it? He explicitly stated his methodology in the introduction itself, where he discussed his methodology and his knowledge of hadith. He said he looks at the hadith, and if its meaning is correct, he accepts it, even if its chain is weak. He gave as an example the hadith: "I love whoever I love"

Another questioner : أحب الله I love Allah

The Shaykh: أهل بيت The people of the household Ah
Al-Halabi: أحبو الله ... I love Allah ... I think

The Shaykh: أحبه لثلاث أحبه I love him for three reasons, I love him The point is, he mentioned a hadith that I had classified as weak. He said, "Its meaning is correct, and therefore, even though its chain is weak, I authenticate it." And he rejected an authentic hadith, which is the raid of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) on Banu Qurayzah. He said, "This, even if its chain is authentic, ..." The point is, if he were a specialist in hadith, he would not have been so modest as to burden someone else with tracing the hadiths in his book. Since he is not a specialist in hadith, where is the principle he boasts about and uses to criticize the common Muslim people who contradict it? The matter has become a matter of personal desire. The hadith he likes, he authenticates, and the one he does not like, he weakens. We ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to protect us

Another questioner : Amen.

The Shaykh: from personal desire, and that we do not follow desire, for it leads us astray from the straight path. And it was reported from the Messenger (peace be upon him): ثلاث مهلكات شح مطاع و هوى متبع وإعجاب كل ذي رأي برأيه Three destructive things: an obeyed miserliness, a followed desire, and the self-admiration of every person who has an opinion. So we ask Allah (Mighty and Majestic) to protect us. And perhaps this is sufficient. The time is approximately 11:15.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh.

Another questioner: The rest of the question

The Shaykh : Yes.

Another questioner: The rest of the question

The Shaykh: And it is

The questioner : The other one: his claim that Malik prioritizes the practice of the people of Madinah over the ahad hadiths, and that Abu Hanifa prioritizes analogical reasoning over the ahad hadiths.

The Shaykh: I am sorry, and this is a reality, but this is not according to the methodology of al-Ghazali. Because Imam Malik lived in Madinah, where the majority of the Companions were, who inherited the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and spread it among the Ummah, as we gave as an example the story of the slave girl. And he was from the followers of the Tabi'un (may Allah have mercy on him), so he narrated many hadiths through the route of Nafi' from Ibn Umar. So he knew that the practice of the people of Madinah was in accordance with the guidance. So when a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) came to him, even with an authentic chain, he would prioritize the practice of the people of Madinah because it was established for him as being in accordance with the Sunnah, and he did not prioritize his personal desire over the hadith. So he has no basis for what he uses to support his deviation from the Sunnah.