Some people, when a relative dies, stay in the house for three days to receive condolences. Is there a basis for this?

The questioner : Some people, when a relative dies, stay in the house for three days to receive condolences. Is there a basis for this?

The Shaykh : This has no basis. I mean, people staying in the house to receive condolences for three days or more has no basis. This is the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that is established among us, and this is the practice of the Companions that is established among us. The matter is not based on guesswork; the matter is based on evidence. We are not the ones who object to the divine decree and destiny in the occurrence of calamities. Death is in the hand of Allah, life is in the hand of Allah, calamities are in the hand of Allah, and good deeds are in the hand of Allah. Everything is in the hand of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Our stance regarding these calamities is that we say what the patient said: Perhaps you have heard the story of Umm Salama (may Allah be pleased with her). What is it? You who turned around, what is it? The story of Umm Salama is that when Abu Salama (may Allah be pleased with him) passed away—Abu Salama (may Allah be pleased with him) was her cousin and one of the most beloved people to her—she was afflicted by it because he was her husband, her cousin, and her beloved. So she was afflicted by it. And she (may Allah be pleased with her) had heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say: So she said that statement. And in her heart she was saying: Who is better than Abu Salama? Who is better than Abu Salama? She did not say this out of doubt regarding what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, but rather, well, was she not, when she said that, doubting the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? But she was thinking, who is better than Abu Salama? So when her waiting period ended, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) proposed to her. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was better than Abu Salama. Well, I say that those who are afflicted by a death are not required to open their doors to people for condolences, gatherings, wasting money, squandering it, keeping the lamps lit, and bringing in reciters. All of this is from religious innovations. And we are a Muslim nation with a Salaf, so it is obligatory for us to follow our Salaf in this. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not sit to receive condolences, and the Companions did not sit to receive condolences; rather, they said what the patient said: "Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we return." Pay attention, my brother. But someone might say: This is a matter that has become customary among us, and it is one of our traditions and customs. If we left it, if we left it, they would say that these people hate this deceased and rejoice in his death because they did not hold mourning ceremonies for him. The answer to this is that we say: This is not justified or a valid reason for us to do this thing that our predecessors did not do. And did those who claimed their fathers as an excuse benefit from their claim? Did their claim benefit them in any way? Those who said: "Indeed, we found our fathers upon a nation, and we are following in their footsteps"—did that benefit them? No. We do not say: We are coming to you with something better than that. That you say: "Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we return. O Allah, reward us in our calamity and replace it for us with something better," and you close the doors. And it has reached me that some people gather in houses as if they were wedding nights. They prepare feasts and bring in reciters who recite and wails. And if he does not get tears from his eyes, he wets it with his saliva. And you find him, may Allah protect us, taking people's money for a matter from which they do not benefit. Why do they not benefit? Because this man only recited for the sake of money. And every deed by which one draws near to Allah, if it is intended for money, becomes null and void. So this reciter took money without right, and the deceased did not benefit from his recitation. And we helped him in sin by making him desire something of this world through the words of Allah. After this, someone might say: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So what is our answer to this? The answer to this is that we say: Did the people gather at the house of the family of Ja'far? Absolutely not. He said: "Prepare food for the family of Ja'far." Only the household. Then he gave the reason, saying: "They have been afflicted with what occupies them." Because in that time, the household needed cooking and effort in obtaining food. It passed two or three months for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) without a fire being lit in his house; their food was only dates and water. If that is the case, then what existed at that time does not exist in our time. Is it possible that the family of the deceased would be occupied with preparing food for them because of the calamity? No, they send their youngest children to the restaurant and they bring them whatever food they want. So there is nothing that occupies them from food at all. So it is obligatory, my brothers—I direct this statement to the notables of the land, or rather the students of knowledge therein—to put an end to this reprehensible religious innovation, which involves wasting money, wasting time, and seeking other than Allah with what is used to draw near to Allah, such as the recitation of the reciter. And by doing so, they would have agreed with the Salaf in their guidance. And it is known that the best guidance is the guidance of whom? The guidance of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)? And that we are commanded to follow our Salaf. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And customs are weighed by what? By the scale of the Shari'ah. So what contradicts the Shari'ah must be abolished, and what does not contradict the Shari'ah is left as is, and what agrees with the Shari'ah is praised. So customs, therefore, have three states. Pay attention, customs have three states: agreement with the Shari'ah, the second is contradiction, and the third is neither agreement nor contradiction. So agreement with the Shari'ah is praised, contradiction with the Shari'ah is blamed and abolished, and what does not contradict the Shari'ah remains; it is not forbidden nor commanded, because the original ruling for customs is permissibility. Yes.