A discussion on the distinction between a methodology and a sin.

The Shaykh : My brother, do you not distinguish between a methodology and a sin?

The questioner : I do distinguish.

The Shaykh : He keeps going around this point. Give me a little time. Let us build on a word we agree on, so that we increase in agreement rather than in disagreement. Since you finally agreed that you distinguish between a methodology and a sin, this is your question. And based on the fact that your question is clear as the sun in the fourth hour of the day, I told you, "Yes, that is correct." But I have a question for you, so do not refuse me. Even though when I asked you if you distinguish between a methodology and a sin, you said, "I distinguish." So there is no difference between my question and the professor's question.

The questioner : Shaykh, if you please, may Allah bless you, let me say "no," and then allow me to elaborate.

The Shaykh : But you are saying "yes," you are not saying "no" now.

The questioner : In what, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : I am asking you, do you not distinguish, with me and with all the attendees, as I think, do you not distinguish that there is a difference between a methodology and a sin?

The questioner : Which methodology?

The Shaykh : The methodology of calling to Allah, to the Book of Allah.

The questioner : There are party methodologies, Shaykh, and there are methodologies.

The Shaykh : He is asking you about this issue, about this specific point that you are going around, which is that they have criticized the scholars and attributed to the scholars *mudahanah* (compromise), not *mudarah* (caution), and that they were subjected to pressures. And this must be commented on, because there is a big difference here. The point is, he is only going around this point; he does not want more from you than that.

The questioner : This methodology, yes.

The Shaykh : This is what I told you, all of it is correct, but I have a question.

The questioner : This methodology, which we say is wrong, which is criticizing the scholars, we consider it a methodology.

The Shaykh : My brother, this is not a methodology, may Allah bless you. This is a sin.

The questioner : But this is a methodology, the methodology of the Saluliyyah, they accuse them of it.

The Shaykh : There is no power or strength except with Allah. If we are not in agreement, no blame, do we distinguish between a sin and a methodology? What is the methodology?

The questioner : May Allah bless you, by Allah, allow me a word.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible to swear by Allah.

The questioner : Okay, may Allah reward you with good. Excuse me, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Do not turn to Allah, it is not to me.

The questioner : No, Shaykh, because I said "by Allah," excuse me.

The Shaykh : No problem, it is not a mistake with me, it is a mistake with your Lord.

The questioner : May Allah bless you, it seems like it was a slip of the tongue, I did not intend it, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : You should apologize to your Lord, not to the servant.

The questioner : I seek Allah's forgiveness.

The Shaykh : But this means, do you distinguish between a methodology and a sin? Do you say you distinguish or you do not distinguish?

The questioner : I do not distinguish in this methodology, the party methodology.

The Shaykh : A word.

The questioner : I distinguish.

The Shaykh : What is the methodology and what is the sin?

The questioner : The methodology of the people of the Sunnah, for example.

The Shaykh : And what is the sin?

The questioner : Contrary to this methodology.

The Shaykh : Fine, no, it is not contrary to this methodology, may Allah guide you. The methodology may be a plan that a person has set for himself, which he has approved for himself. He may be correct, or he may be wrong. As for the sin, a sin does not accept debate.

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : So now, you who attribute to him that he attributed to the scholars *mudahanah* (compromise) and their *fisq* (open sinfulness), do you say this is a disobedience to his Lord or not?

The questioner : It is a disobedience to his Lord.

The Shaykh : Okay, so if he disobeyed his Lord, he contradicted his methodology, meaning Iblis, whom the Lord of the Worlds said: Did he contradict his methodology, or is the whole matter that he disobeyed, as our Lord said?

The questioner : He disobeyed his Lord.

The Shaykh : Okay, this is what the professor is going around: if you must say something with this specificity, that he disobeyed. As for him coming with a new methodology, no, by Allah, this is not taken from him as a new methodology. And especially, I do not know if I am allowed to bring in *fisq* (open sinfulness), my brother. From the legal perspective, a person is not established as a *fasiq* (open sinner) merely for a mistake he made or a sin he committed. Do you agree with me in this, or are you in doubt about what I am saying?

The questioner : The sin, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I mean, the man who made a mistake in his life once, or the man who wronged someone for one day, he is not called a wrongdoer, and he is not called a *fasiq* (open sinner). But the one who is predominantly...

The questioner : He is called a wrongdoer and he is called a *fasiq* (open sinner).

The Shaykh : Okay, so it is not permissible to say that they attributed to the scholars *fisq* (open sinfulness) merely from this word, which is a mistake in a million, if the attribution to them is true. In summary, the professor wants to distinguish between saying, you or anyone else, that the group came with a new methodology. What is the evidence? They criticized the Shaykhs, they attributed to them *fisq* (open sinfulness). They did not come with a methodology, but they came with a sin. They should have elevated themselves above it.

The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, allow me.

The Shaykh : Is this statement correct or not correct?

The questioner : Shaykh, there is a detail, it needs to be detailed. I will answer in detail, allow me.

The Shaykh : I have a rule, my brother. The professor mentioned you earlier in the style of broadcasting. What do they say? "Briefly!"
Shuqara: Briefly the news, then the details.

The Shaykh : Why is this? To gather the minds of the listeners to the main topic in which the details will come. This is a style related to good speech and good questioning. I am saying, if you ask Zayd from among people, "What is your opinion, are musical instruments permissible or not permissible?" Does he have to give a lecture, my brother, may Allah bless you? Say "permissible" and give your lecture, or say "not permissible" and give your lecture. And perhaps you have saved me from the lecture—if it matches what I have—there is a need for the lecture at that time. If you ask me about something and it matches what I have, there is no need for you to give a lecture. So, may Allah bless you, take this advice from me: the best speech is what is brief and effective. If I ask you about something and you agree with the answer I have, say it briefly. At that time, we will look at the need for you to explain.

The questioner : Bring your question, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : My question clarified to you that if Zayd from among people criticizes a scholar or some scholars and attributes to them *riya'* (showing off), did he come with a new methodology, or is the whole matter that he disobeyed Allah?

The questioner : He disobeyed Allah.

The Shaykh : That is it. And this is what the professor was going around, saying, do not take this sin as a means for you to say that they came with a new methodology. Do you have evidence other than this to look into? As for this, if you take it as evidence, you will be wrong.
Shuqara: If this evidence is not being discussed now.

The Shaykh : Not at all.

The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah bless you, when we say that these people, when they criticize the scholars, it is on the methodology that exists. They say, "Our scholars do not understand reality. Our scholars do not know the scholars of menstruation and post-natal bleeding."

The Shaykh : And then, stir the water, and it is water.

The questioner : No, I do not stir the water, the water, and I do not interpret water after effort with water. But this is a methodology. Everyone who criticizes the scholars carries the issue of understanding reality, and that our scholars do not understand the jurisprudence of reality. And therefore...

The Shaykh : I am as certain as certainty that you are wrong in what you are saying, and I hope the matter becomes clear to you. Is the methodology not what the person with the methodology follows throughout his life? Is it not so? Please, is it not so?

The questioner : There is no doubt.

The Shaykh : Is their life criticizing the scholars?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : This makes it clear to you.

The questioner : The methodology changes, Shaykh, meaning the person, subhan Allah, between one day and the next.

The Shaykh : My brother, a person who commits open sinfulness can become righteous, but while he is in a state of open sinfulness, he is an open sinner. When does he become an open sinner? When open sinfulness, lewdness, and disobedience prevail over him, and so on. But when he reforms, we do not say that he had a methodology and then adopted a second one; rather, he was an open sinner and then became righteous. So, you keep insisting on equating disobedience with methodology. I have drawn your attention to a very clear point: the methodology is the path and way of life that a person lives by, from the moment this methodology becomes clear until his last breath. I said, yes, meaning these people keep attacking, and they have nothing but the methodology of attacking scholars. I said, no. If this is not a methodology, may Allah reward you, this is an exaggeration in religion. Give me this: this is an exaggeration in religion. First, it is calling things by names that are not theirs. Second, it is attributing to people more than their actual state. My brother, they attacked the scholars on the occasion of what? Seeking the aid of disbelievers. They attacked them and attributed to them compromising, as you say, that they yielded to certain pressures, and so on. That is it, the matter is over. It was a mistake that occurred from them, a sin that occurred from them, but this is not part of their methodology, by your own admission. That is, it is not their constant habit to always attack scholars. So, glory be to Allah, this is an exaggeration. We mean, we claim and hope to be sincere, carrying the Book and the Sunnah and following the methodology of the righteous predecessors. But we should be aware of our mistakes that take us away from our methodology. Our methodology is to always be just with people, even with disbelievers, even with open sinners. These are not our brothers in the line of the Book, the Sunnah, and the methodology of the righteous predecessors, but they have their mistakes and their sins. Allah knows best what is in their hearts. But according to what we hear, that they attacked the scholars, we ask Allah to forgive us and them.

The questioner : That is what we warn against.

The Shaykh : My brother, this question is not relevant. The important thing is that this is not part of their methodology. I hope you will agree with me, just as you agreed before, and may Allah reward you. This is not part of his methodology.

The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, it has happened many times, not just once, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : My brother, once, twice, three times, it is not part of their methodology.

The questioner : It is not the predominant state of their condition that they are always attacking scholars.
Shuqara: Our Shaykh, let me ask another question, O Abu Jabir, excuse me, excuse me. A man whose constant habit is to accuse chaste people and to accuse chaste women, what do you call this, a methodology or a sin?

The questioner : This is his constant habit, his methodology is like this.
Shuqara: He is a Muslim man who says there is no god but Allah, professes the truth, establishes the obligatory acts, pays zakah, performs Hajj, and calls to Allah with knowledge. But this person has been afflicted with such a sin. What do you say, is this his methodology, or is he persisting in a sin?

The questioner : He is persisting in a sin.
Shuqara: This man’s habit is to attack scholars. He is persisting in attacking scholars, meaning he is disobeying Allah by attacking scholars. So do we call him a person who commits a sin, or someone who is persisting in a methodology?

The questioner : We call him a person who commits a sin.

The Shaykh : He whispered to me, is this whispering permissible? A whisper from a human to a human. He whispered to me something about the methodology that a Muslim, especially, sets for himself to draw near to Allah, or not?

The questioner : He draws near to Allah the Exalted and Majestic through it.

The Shaykh : Good. A sin is not something through which one draws near to Allah. This is enough for you to distinguish between the methodology and the sin, my brother.

The questioner : That is correct, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : So I ask you to be frank with the truth that you were frank with earlier. The methodology is one thing.

The questioner : It has become clear to me, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.
Shuqara: The people of truth are always like this.