about the hadith: "Two religions do not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The hadith that is also circulating these days, We do not know the degree of authenticity of this hadith, the occasion on which it was said, or whether it applies to what we are seeing now?
The Shaykh : First, the hadith is authentic without doubt, and its meaning is that it is not permissible for there to be a religion other than Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. However, the scholars differed in explaining what is meant by the Arabian Peninsula in this hadith, with many opinions, and I do not recall them all now. But what must be known by everyone is that the Peninsula in this hadith is not in the geographical sense known today. The hadith is authentic, and the first things to fall under it are Makkah, al-Madinah, and other lands mentioned in those opinions that I do not recall now. As for whether this hadith applies to this painful reality today, which is the entry of the American armies and some European armies, such as the British and others, into the Saudi lands, this does not contradict the hadith, except if, meaning, these armies become a colony for these lands and a homeland for them, as is the case of the Jews now with regard to Palestine. At that time, the hadith would contradict this reality if we understand it as a report (khabar) and not a command (insha'). The difference is very great. If an Arab says, "There is no man in the house," it means absolute negation. This is different from if he says, "There is no young man except Ali." This does not negate the existence of young men. In the Arabic language, when "la" (no) enters a sentence, it does not always give one meaning; rather, it differs in many cases. For example, in the Noble Qur'an,[Al-Baqarah 2:197] In the hadith, "la" (no) has the same meaning as "la" (no) in the verse. Here is the explanation: [Al-Baqarah 2:197] "Did we ask a questioner, 'Will there be no argument in the Hajj?' It will happen. 'Will there be no immorality in the Hajj?' Yes. 'Will there be no lewdness, i.e., intercourse?' It will happen. So, does this contradict the verse? The answer is: it contradicts and it does not. It contradicts if it is misunderstood, and it does not contradict if it is understood correctly. What is the correct understanding? 'No lewdness' is not a report, but a prohibition of lewdness. The rest of the verse is the same. The hadith, perhaps, has become clear?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : May Allah permit it. If these disbelieving countries colonize the Saudi lands and establish the Christian religion there as the ruling religion, this does not contradict the hadith, because the hadith means, "O Muslims, do not make a second religion in the Arabian Peninsula." In that case, the Muslims would be violating this hadith, not the hadith contradicting the reality. Is that clear, Doctor? And I think the matter is finished.
The questioner : Approximately, most people... understand this meaning, which is an exhortation for Muslims that two religions should not coexist in the Peninsula. Consequently, they say that victory, if Allah wills, will be achieved by defeating the disbelievers, because they consider this hadith, which states that two religions must not coexist in the Peninsula, as a basis. The understanding is clear; no one would say otherwise.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, the last sentence confused me. It confused you too, not just me.
The questioner : Those who use this hadith, in fact, most Muslims now say that the hadith states that there are not two religions in the Peninsula. They take it as an exhortation for Muslims to fight, saying that victory belongs to the Muslims and defeat to America and Britain, because it is obligatory that disbelievers not be present on Muslim land.
The Shaykh : But a little while ago, the speech differed from the first.
The questioner : Why did it differ?
Al-Halabi : ... .
Another questioner : The formulations in which such things come, in general, if they are in the form of prohibition, they mean "Believers do not take disbelievers..." The original is decisive... If it is like this, all of these that contain a command are... And the informative ones, in general, are summarized. "The Hour will not stand." I am speaking about the verb. "No lewdness, no immorality," and so on. Naturally, it is difficult to prohibit people from coexisting. The formulation "Two religions do not coexist in the Peninsula"—you are not prohibiting two religions from not coexisting. Therefore, the formulation is "Two religions do not coexist," even though it is informative, but the intention is to prohibit people from that. Is this the intended style?
The Shaykh : This is what we said. You are repeating what we have established in the form of a question. The sentence may be a negation meaning prohibition. And here, in the verse and in the hadith, it is a negation meaning prohibition: "Do not be lewd, do not argue." "No two religions" means "Do not make two religions in the Arabian Peninsula." Otherwise, two religions existed in the Arabian Peninsula before Islam spread. It is only an exhortation for Muslims, as we said, not to allow the establishment of another religion in the Arabian Peninsula, despite their differences in defining the meaning of the Peninsula, as we mentioned earlier.
Al-Halabi : This meaning is confirmed by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Al-Mustadrak lil-Hakim 39:43 which aligns with it.
The Shaykh : Yes, here, Professor Ali, he has a question.
The questioner : In the previous case, it seems Brother Abu Yahya understood the meaning of the hadith as a cosmic meaning, not a legal one. That is how he understood it: that two religions do not coexist, even if the Muslims did not do anything, did not fight, they will not coexist.
The Shaykh : I do not attribute anything to him except that he testifies to it.
The questioner : That two religions do not coexist, that since the Messenger reported this, the matter is established that two religions do not coexist.
Another questioner : I told Abu Yahya that it is an exhortation for people to...
Another questioner : This is possible, because all the people who are saying, meaning, the hadith is authentic and the hadith is truthful, and consequently...
Another questioner : It gives glad tidings of victory.
Another questioner : Because now we have taken from you an answer to a previous question, and it had two specific lines, and now it has new inputs.
Yes
Two religions do not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula
لا يجتمع في الجزيرة دينانThe Shaykh : First, the hadith is authentic without doubt, and its meaning is that it is not permissible for there to be a religion other than Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. However, the scholars differed in explaining what is meant by the Arabian Peninsula in this hadith, with many opinions, and I do not recall them all now. But what must be known by everyone is that the Peninsula in this hadith is not in the geographical sense known today. The hadith is authentic, and the first things to fall under it are Makkah, al-Madinah, and other lands mentioned in those opinions that I do not recall now. As for whether this hadith applies to this painful reality today, which is the entry of the American armies and some European armies, such as the British and others, into the Saudi lands, this does not contradict the hadith, except if, meaning, these armies become a colony for these lands and a homeland for them, as is the case of the Jews now with regard to Palestine. At that time, the hadith would contradict this reality if we understand it as a report (khabar) and not a command (insha'). The difference is very great. If an Arab says, "There is no man in the house," it means absolute negation. This is different from if he says, "There is no young man except Ali." This does not negate the existence of young men. In the Arabic language, when "la" (no) enters a sentence, it does not always give one meaning; rather, it differs in many cases. For example, in the Noble Qur'an,
Hajj is [during] well-known months, so whoever has made Hajj obligatory upon himself therein [by entering the state of ihram], there is [to be for him] no sexual relations and no disobedience and no disputing during Hajj.
الحج أشهر معلومات فمن فرض فيهن الحج فلا رفث ولا فسوق ولا جدال في الحجthere is [to be for him] no sexual relations and no disobedience and no disputing during Hajj
فلا رفث ولا فسوق ولا جدال في الحجةThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : May Allah permit it. If these disbelieving countries colonize the Saudi lands and establish the Christian religion there as the ruling religion, this does not contradict the hadith, because the hadith means, "O Muslims, do not make a second religion in the Arabian Peninsula." In that case, the Muslims would be violating this hadith, not the hadith contradicting the reality. Is that clear, Doctor? And I think the matter is finished.
The questioner : Approximately, most people... understand this meaning, which is an exhortation for Muslims that two religions should not coexist in the Peninsula. Consequently, they say that victory, if Allah wills, will be achieved by defeating the disbelievers, because they consider this hadith, which states that two religions must not coexist in the Peninsula, as a basis. The understanding is clear; no one would say otherwise.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, the last sentence confused me. It confused you too, not just me.
The questioner : Those who use this hadith, in fact, most Muslims now say that the hadith states that there are not two religions in the Peninsula. They take it as an exhortation for Muslims to fight, saying that victory belongs to the Muslims and defeat to America and Britain, because it is obligatory that disbelievers not be present on Muslim land.
The Shaykh : But a little while ago, the speech differed from the first.
The questioner : Why did it differ?
Al-Halabi : ... .
Another questioner : The formulations in which such things come, in general, if they are in the form of prohibition, they mean "Believers do not take disbelievers..." The original is decisive... If it is like this, all of these that contain a command are... And the informative ones, in general, are summarized. "The Hour will not stand." I am speaking about the verb. "No lewdness, no immorality," and so on. Naturally, it is difficult to prohibit people from coexisting. The formulation "Two religions do not coexist in the Peninsula"—you are not prohibiting two religions from not coexisting. Therefore, the formulation is "Two religions do not coexist," even though it is informative, but the intention is to prohibit people from that. Is this the intended style?
The Shaykh : This is what we said. You are repeating what we have established in the form of a question. The sentence may be a negation meaning prohibition. And here, in the verse and in the hadith, it is a negation meaning prohibition:
No lewdness
لا رفثAl-Halabi : This meaning is confirmed by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
Expel the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula.
أخرجوا اليهود من جزيرة العربThe Shaykh : Yes, here, Professor Ali, he has a question.
The questioner : In the previous case, it seems Brother Abu Yahya understood the meaning of the hadith as a cosmic meaning, not a legal one. That is how he understood it: that two religions do not coexist, even if the Muslims did not do anything, did not fight, they will not coexist.
The Shaykh : I do not attribute anything to him except that he testifies to it.
The questioner : That two religions do not coexist, that since the Messenger reported this, the matter is established that two religions do not coexist.
Another questioner : I told Abu Yahya that it is an exhortation for people to...
Another questioner : This is possible, because all the people who are saying, meaning, the hadith is authentic and the hadith is truthful, and consequently...
Another questioner : It gives glad tidings of victory.
Another questioner : Because now we have taken from you an answer to a previous question, and it had two specific lines, and now it has new inputs.
Yes
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.