What is meant by the understanding of the righteous Salaf?

Al-Halali: The second question says that the Salafi call means returning to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) with the understanding of the righteous Salaf, who are the Companions and those who followed them with excellence until the Day of Judgment. Does the understanding of the Salaf mean following them in the fundamentals of religion, or in the issues on which they agreed, or following each one of them individually? We ask for clarification of this issue?

The Shaykh : I think the answer was implicitly given earlier regarding part of this question. I say: If the righteous Salaf differed, it is permissible for us to differ as they differed, without adding to it, as Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If there are two statements from the Salaf on a single issue, it is not permissible for us to introduce a third statement, but we have the choice to prefer one statement over the other. However, coming with a new understanding that contradicts what they were upon is what falls under the previous verse . This is the matter if they differed. As for if they agreed, there is no doubt that contradicting them is clearer in contradicting the verse. As for if there is only one statement according to what has reached us, and there may be other statements we have not seen, if one of them has a statement on an issue and we do not know his evidence for it—it may be reasoning (nazar) or it may be analogical reasoning (qiyas)—then in this case, I see that the safest course is to follow him in his opinion, unless it contradicts a text we have, either from the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or from his actions. I give an example in this and mention a story with a point. As for the example, in Sahih Muslim, from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) forbade drinking while standing." It was said to him: "What about eating?" He said: "Worse." Eating while standing, he said, is worse than drinking while standing. Within the limits of my knowledge, I have not found any support for Anas's statement, nor any contradiction from the words of the Messenger or his actions. So I am reassured by his statement as long as the matter is like this, meaning there is nothing we can rely on to contradict him and say, "No, it is not as he wants to say, 'worse,' meaning 'worse.'" Rather, we do not find anything that helps us say that it is "worse" but not "worse." We do not find this or that. Since the matter is so, our following of Anas's statement, and he served the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) for ten years, is safer for us than for us to argue with a principle like "the original ruling for things is permissibility," because this principle is not hidden from someone like Anas ibn Malik. I say that in such a case, following him is better for us than for us to introduce an opinion from ourselves that contradicts his opinion. Also, I do not see that we should interpret the prohibition here, as many scholars who permit drinking while standing do, and they know that such a prohibition from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) is established, but they interpret the prohibition as being for dislike (makruh). I do not see this interpretation of this authentic text either, because in another narration, also in Sahih Muslim, instead of "forbade" (nahaya) . And as I say in many such occasions, I do not forget, O Abu Mus'ab, my original meaning, meaning Al-Albani, meaning a foreigner and the race is thorny, so I reserve judgment and say, I truly reserve judgment, and I say, with the help of the people of knowledge and the people of Arabic principles, I understand that his saying is more emphatic in prohibition than "forbade" (nahaya). If that is the case, I say that this second word, also established from Anas, stands between us and accepting the interpretation of "forbade" (nahaya) as being for mere disapproval (tanzihi), meaning it is permissible to drink while standing, but it is not the first choice, a deterrent. I do not find in the language a deterrent that is both disapproving and prohibiting, unlike "forbade" (nahaya). In addition to this, and one thing reminds of another, by the way, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated in his Musnad with a sound chain from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he (peace and blessings be upon him) saw a man drinking while standing and said to him . He said: "No, O Messenger of Allah." He said . This also does not help us to interpret the prohibition, which is from the work of Satan, as being disliked, that it is permissible but with disapproving dislike (makruh tanzihi), especially since the completion of Abu Hurayrah's hadith says he told him . This is a matter of hardship compared to what? A disapproving contradiction. I do not believe this. Therefore, I want to reach the point I referred to earlier, which is that the Companions are distinguished from those who came after them by the fact that they directly heard, they directly listened to the words of the Messenger, and there is a difference between a direct listener and a listener through an intermediary. And here is the point; I do not know if I have ever heard it or not. One day, while I was in Damascus, one of our brothers came to me, and a person from the Tahrir Party had debated with him. These people, as I think you know, adopted principles and jurisprudential rules that contradicted the known among the scholars of principles, such as that a command does not imply obligation, nor does it imply recommendation as a rule. Rather, I express from my own view that the command is loose; one only looks at the restrictions and contexts to interpret the text as either obligation, or recommendation, or guidance, and so on. As for the principle implying obligation, no.
Al-Halali: ... they have a rule that a command implies a request.

The Shaykh : Yes, is this a request for obligation?
Al-Halali: No.

The Shaykh : This is what I told you, I will interpret it from my own view. Yes, the intended meaning is: this person came to me saying, "I differed with my partner on this issue and I could not handle it, because his partner is his teacher in the craft, so he is his teacher first, and then he is more knowledgeable than him in Islamic culture second. So he was not able to debate him. Glory be to Allah, I was inspired at that moment, because our partner did not have the strong culture such that if I explained the topic to him, he would understand it and convey it exactly. I said to him: I will guide you to a method to get rid of him. You are an employee working for him. Whenever he orders you to do something, in Syrian expression, I said to him: "Ignore it, act as if you didn't hear, remind yourself. Whenever it's like that, ignore it, you don't have to listen. If he wants to show his temper, the man wants to be angry, 'O so-and-so, why don't you answer me?' I say, 'O Professor, I understood from you that a command does not imply obligation. So as long as it does not imply obligation, I am free.' I am here, my witness. Now, why did I bring this case? This Companion, when he hears the command of the Messenger about something, or hears the prohibition, the Messenger remains in a position that makes the direct listener feel that this is a binding command or not, a prohibition that is terrifying or not. So he conveys to us first the word of the Messenger, and second his understanding of the word of the Messenger. From here, I say we are Salafis.