What is the meaning of the hadith: “Indeed, this religion is easy, and no one will contend with this religion except that it will overcome him”?

The questioner : May Allah reward you. He says: What is the meaning of the hadith: What is the meaning of contending with the religion and its overcoming, and is it explained by the hadith: ? They went deep into it.

The Shaykh : The meaning of the hadith is that the religion of Allah the Exalted is easy, and if you reflect on the reality of the religion, you will find it to be so. The commands and prohibitions of the Shari'ah are all easy. Look, for example, at prayer, fasting, zakah, and Hajj; it is all easy, with no hardship. Then, if hardship befalls a person, this obligation is lightened. In wudu', one purifies oneself with water; if that is not possible, one purifies oneself with what? With dust. If that is not possible, one prays without anything, without purification. Is that clear? Is this easy or difficult?
In prayer, pray standing; if you cannot, then sit; if you cannot, then lie on your side. Is this easy or not? It is easy.
Recite al-Fatihah; if you cannot, recite what corresponds to it from the Qur'an, if you have the Qur'an. If you cannot, bring dhikr in place of the recitation. If you cannot, if you are unable, the recitation is dropped from you. And so on.
In fasting, fast; if you are sick or traveling, break your fast. The entire religion is easy, praise be to Allah. Even the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered those sent to people to call them to Islam to order them to make things easy. He said: This is the opposite of some people who cling to the religion, and they are rewarded for their clinging, yet you find them strict with themselves and with people. A sick person, you find him sick, fasting is hard for him or harms him, and yet he says what? I will fast. He travels in days of heat, thirst, and hunger, and fasting is hard for him, and yet he says: I will what? I will fast. This is a mistake. If Allah has made things easy, make them easy. He wears socks over purification, and when the time for the next prayer comes and he wants to perform wudu', he takes off the socks and says, “I do not wipe over them.” This is also a mistake. This means that if a person contends with the religion and wants to be strict, then whoever is strict, Allah will be strict with him. Look at the Children of Israel when it was said to them, “Slaughter a cow,” so that they would know the victim, so that they would know the killer. If they had slaughtered any cow, the matter would have ended. But what did they say? . So it was explained to them what it was. Its age is medium, not an old cow, and not a virgin. But they were strict also with what? With the color. They said, “We know the age, what is its color?” Slaughter any one, black, yellow, whatever. They were strict with them. He said: And it is not just yellow, and that is not enough either, They were strict with them regarding the color in three things, . It was not enough. And what did this cow do? The age, we are done with it; the color, we are done with it; the work? Yes? He said: ... Does this exist? And so they were strict, and Allah was strict with them. This is the meaning of His saying: . Whenever you seek strictness in the religion, know that Allah will be strict with you. And take that as a lesson, we ask Allah for safety for you and for us. Take it as an example with the obsessives who are strict with themselves in purification. If one is strict, Allah is strict with him. Some people say, “If I shake hands with a person and his hand has sweat, I must wash my hand. Why?” He says, “Perhaps he performed istinja' or istijmar in a non-prescribed way, so his hand became impure with it. It is possible that it is impure. Yes? If any water touches him, he says it is impure, or I must wash my clothes or wash my body, even though the original state is what? Purity. It is even narrated from the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), that he passed by the owner of a pool from which animals were drinking, and the water touched the companion of 'Umar, a man walking with him. The man said to the owner of the pool, “O so-and-so, what is your pool? Is it impure or pure?” 'Umar said to him, “O owner of the pool, do not tell us.” Do not tell us, do not tell us. Why? Because this is a matter of strictness in the religion. Take the original state; make it easy for yourself. The original state is what? Purity. Some people, if they walk on the carpet after coming out of the bathroom while in a state of wudu', if they walk without sandals, they say the ground is impure, I must wash my foot. Then he goes back and washes his foot, then comes out and becomes impure a second time in his opinion, and returns to wash his foot until he finds sandals to walk in, or else the entire ground is impure. So the important thing, my brothers, is that you follow ease as much as you are able to do so in everything. And know that the Islamic religion, with all its commands and prohibitions, is in accordance with sound fitrah and sound intellect, and it is also in accordance with ease.
If someone says, “Two scholars differed for me; one is strict and the other makes things easy. Whom do I follow?” Yes? We say: Follow the one who is more trustworthy to you. Follow the more trustworthy one. The more trustworthy in his knowledge and in his trustworthiness, because the more trustworthy in his knowledge, because some people issue fatwas without knowledge. The more trustworthy in his trustworthiness, because some people issue fatwas according to what their companion sees, not seeing that their companion wants it. For this reason, it should be known to us that scholars are in three categories. Scholars are in three categories: a scholar of the state, a scholar of the nation, and a scholar of the religion. How many categories are there now? Three:
A scholar of the state: He looks at what the state wants. So whatever the state wants is halal, even if it is forbidden by explicit text. Fine, man, the text forbids it. He says, “This is intended to mean such and such,” and he goes to interpret it. Until when socialism spread in the Arab nation, some scholars twisted the necks of the texts in a bad way. They said, “Socialism is indicated by it; the Qur'an indicated it. Yes? What Qur'an?” He said: “Indeed, Allah said: Huh? Yes, Huh, socialism is perfect. . They distorted the verse, because the meaning of the verse is: Are your slaves partners with you in what Allah has provided for you? Are they equal in what He has provided? And the answer? Yes or no? No. If your slaves do not share in your provision, how do you make a partner with Allah in worship, when this is His dominion and this is the partner's dominion? For this reason, the ignorant Arabs say in the talbiyah, “Labbaik, no partner to You except a partner that is Yours; You own him and what he owns.” Fine, if he becomes an owned slave, how does he become a partner? But ignorance is a deadly disease. In any case, this category of people is called what? A scholar of the state. He looks at what the state wants and rules that it is the Shari'ah of Allah. And if it contradicts the texts, what does he do? He twists the neck of the text until it agrees with what the state wants.
The second is a scholar of the nation: He looks at what the nation wants. Whatever is good for the people, he issues a fatwa for them, even if it contradicts the Shari'ah. And his way with the text that contradicts what the people like is the way of the first man: he twists the necks of the texts so that they agree with what the people want. Yes? This is what we call what? A scholar of the nation, meaning that he rules with what the nation wants.
The third category: A scholar of the religion—may Allah make me and you among them. What does a scholar of the religion mean? It means he rules with what the Islamic religion requires, whether it agrees with what the state wants and what the nation wants, or it contradicts them. This is the true scholar, the divine scholar.
So if the opinion of two scholars differs for you, follow the one who is more trustworthy to you in completeness. Be complete in his knowledge, his religion, and his trustworthiness. If the two men are equal in your estimation, or you do not know which one is more trustworthy, what do you do? Some people said: “Act according to this one's saying once and this one's saying once.” This is not correct. This is not correct. He gave an example of this with a man who says, “Allahu akbar” (Allah is the Greatest) in response to the imam's “Sami' Allahu li man hamidah” (Allah hears the one who praises Him), “Rabbana wa laka al-hamd” (Our Lord, and to You is the praise). Does he place his hands on his chest or let them hang? He said, “Two great scholars differed on this.” So he said to some of them, “Do this once and this once,” and he made the issue as if it were a difference in the Sunnah, but it is not a difference in the Sunnah. This is a difference of opinion. And what is prescribed according to this one and this one is one thing: either you place your hands on your chest after ruku' as they were before ruku', or you let them hang.
The correct ruling is that you place your hands on your chest; this is the correct position based on the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa'd: This is general for all states of prayer, excluding bowing because the hands are on the knees, prostration because the hands are on the ground, and sitting because the hands are on the thighs. This leaves standing in two states: before bowing and after it, both of which fall under this hadith. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "A person has a choice; if he wishes, he places them on his chest, and if he wishes, he lets them hang down". But the truth is what should be followed, and what appears to me is that placing the hands after bowing is like placing them before bowing. However, I say that some people say, "I will act according to this scholar's opinion one time and that scholar's opinion another time." This is not correct. But some scholars said that in such a case, if the two scholars are equal in your estimation, or you do not know which one is more reliable, follow the easier one. Another group of scholars said, "Follow the stricter one." A third group said, "You have a choice." But what appears to me is that you should follow the easier one for two reasons:
The first reason is that the easier one is in accordance with the spirit of the Shari'ah, because the Islamic religion is a religion of what? A religion of ease. So we follow the easier one.
The second reason is that the original state is the innocence of the conscience. If we adopted the stricter view, it would be necessary to declare sinful the one who contradicted it. Is the original state being declared sinful or not being declared sinful? Not being declared sinful. But in my opinion, this is a rare matter; it is rare to see two scholars disagree where one is not more reliable than the other in your estimation. This is something rare. And you should follow the more reliable one. The analogy is if a man is sick and two doctors disagree with him, one saying, "Use this medicine," and the other saying, "Use that medicine." Which one does he take? Without a doubt, the more reliable one. If they are equal in his estimation, he has a choice, because here there is no stricter and no lighter, is there?
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, now the brothers say that the time is over, but we are fine, will ten minutes please you? Will it please you? Okay, let's have ten minutes.