What is the ruling on sitting in a place where there is evil, and if leaving would anger one's relatives? And was the Shaykh sitting in evil, specifically the Najdi display, without standing up?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : He says: Sitting in a place where there is evil may involve harm in removing it or leaving the place, meaning slight harm, such as, for example, angering someone from one's relatives or family.
And some people actually narrate a story, I do not know, which they cite as evidence, saying: "I saw you once in the Najdi display, that you heard it and did not stand up, and you did not denounce it." Is this true?
The Shaykh : First: Sitting with the people of evil, while a person is able to stand up, is participation in their sin, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:[An-Nisa 4:140] meaning, if you sit, you are like them. It is not permissible for anyone to sit with the people of evil unless there is harm in leaving. As for merely angering one's family or the like, this is not an excuse.
So if, for example, his family turns on the television to something forbidden and he forbids them from it but they do not stop, it is obligatory for him to stand up. If he says, "If I stand up, my father or my mother or the like will be upset," or the woman, yes, then it is not permissible for him to remain; rather, he must stand up even if they are angry, because seeking the pleasure of people through the anger of Allah means prioritizing what people are pleased with over what Allah is pleased with, may Allah protect us from that.
As for what is attributed to me regarding sitting in the Najdi display, first: this is true; I sat because I was addressing a person whom I believed addressing would yield a great benefit greater than my standing up. Moreover, some scholars permit the Najdi display on occasions such as festivals and the like. They cite as evidence the action of the Habashis in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), where they were playing with their spears in front of the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
And he permitted Aisha to look at them, so he would hide her, and she would look from over his shoulder (peace and blessings be upon him). So the issue, meaning this matter lightens it, that it was done on an occasion that may be permissible for such amusement.
And secondly, as I told you: I was addressing someone whom I saw that addressing him had a great benefit that outweighs the harm of my presence for something in which there is disagreement regarding its permissibility. And this leads us to another issue:
In matters of disagreement, if a person is doing something and you see it as forbidden while he sees it as permissible, is it permissible for you to remain with him because he did something forbidden in your view, or is it not permissible? So is it permissible for you to remain with him or is it not permissible?
Some people may say: It is permissible for you to remain with him because this action is not forbidden in his view. And people may say: It is not permissible because this action is forbidden in your view.
So is the criterion the belief of the doer or the belief of the one sitting? What appears to me is that the criterion is the belief of the doer. So if he sees it as lawful and there is no clear text that invalidates his independent legal reasoning, then the criterion is his action.
And the evidence for this is if you and a man eat camel meat, and you see that it breaks the ablution, so you performed ablution, while he sees that it does not break the ablution, so he did not perform ablution. Then the time for prayer came, and he stood up to pray. He stood up to pray, he prayed in front of you, or perhaps he prayed as a follower with you, as a follower with you. Is this forbidden? The answer is: No, even though praying without ablution is among the major sins.
To the extent that some scholars said: The one who prays while in a state of ritual impurity has exited Islam. And it is known that we do not sin if a person who ate camel meat with us, while he sees that it does not break the ablution and we see that it does, prays next to us. So we do not sin by his praying with us. If you saw a person who had broken his ablution with urine or feces and stood up to pray with you, is it permissible for you to approve of it? It is not permissible for you to approve of it; you prevent him. If he refuses to do anything but do it, you turn away from him.
So this issue is a matter of disagreement among scholars based on pure independent legal reasoning where there is no decisive evidence. If the one who sees it as permissible does it, then it is permissible in his right. And I, if I did not do it, then nothing of his sin is upon me. Yes.
And some people actually narrate a story, I do not know, which they cite as evidence, saying: "I saw you once in the Najdi display, that you heard it and did not stand up, and you did not denounce it." Is this true?
The Shaykh : First: Sitting with the people of evil, while a person is able to stand up, is participation in their sin, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them
وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ إِنَّكُمْ إِذاً مِثْلُهُمْSo if, for example, his family turns on the television to something forbidden and he forbids them from it but they do not stop, it is obligatory for him to stand up. If he says, "If I stand up, my father or my mother or the like will be upset," or the woman, yes, then it is not permissible for him to remain; rather, he must stand up even if they are angry, because seeking the pleasure of people through the anger of Allah means prioritizing what people are pleased with over what Allah is pleased with, may Allah protect us from that.
As for what is attributed to me regarding sitting in the Najdi display, first: this is true; I sat because I was addressing a person whom I believed addressing would yield a great benefit greater than my standing up. Moreover, some scholars permit the Najdi display on occasions such as festivals and the like. They cite as evidence the action of the Habashis in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), where they were playing with their spears in front of the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
And he permitted Aisha to look at them, so he would hide her, and she would look from over his shoulder (peace and blessings be upon him). So the issue, meaning this matter lightens it, that it was done on an occasion that may be permissible for such amusement.
And secondly, as I told you: I was addressing someone whom I saw that addressing him had a great benefit that outweighs the harm of my presence for something in which there is disagreement regarding its permissibility. And this leads us to another issue:
In matters of disagreement, if a person is doing something and you see it as forbidden while he sees it as permissible, is it permissible for you to remain with him because he did something forbidden in your view, or is it not permissible? So is it permissible for you to remain with him or is it not permissible?
Some people may say: It is permissible for you to remain with him because this action is not forbidden in his view. And people may say: It is not permissible because this action is forbidden in your view.
So is the criterion the belief of the doer or the belief of the one sitting? What appears to me is that the criterion is the belief of the doer. So if he sees it as lawful and there is no clear text that invalidates his independent legal reasoning, then the criterion is his action.
And the evidence for this is if you and a man eat camel meat, and you see that it breaks the ablution, so you performed ablution, while he sees that it does not break the ablution, so he did not perform ablution. Then the time for prayer came, and he stood up to pray. He stood up to pray, he prayed in front of you, or perhaps he prayed as a follower with you, as a follower with you. Is this forbidden? The answer is: No, even though praying without ablution is among the major sins.
To the extent that some scholars said: The one who prays while in a state of ritual impurity has exited Islam. And it is known that we do not sin if a person who ate camel meat with us, while he sees that it does not break the ablution and we see that it does, prays next to us. So we do not sin by his praying with us. If you saw a person who had broken his ablution with urine or feces and stood up to pray with you, is it permissible for you to approve of it? It is not permissible for you to approve of it; you prevent him. If he refuses to do anything but do it, you turn away from him.
So this issue is a matter of disagreement among scholars based on pure independent legal reasoning where there is no decisive evidence. If the one who sees it as permissible does it, then it is permissible in his right. And I, if I did not do it, then nothing of his sin is upon me. Yes.