What is your opinion of the one who says he does not respond to everyone because no one would be left whom we have not responded to?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you, O Shaykh. Regarding the response, O Shaykh, the brother mentioned that some people say that one should not respond to everyone, because if he responds to this one and that one, who will be left for the Muslims to advise? Is this correct?
The Shaykh : No, no, he does not mean that.
The questioner : Addition.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Addition. I say: Some people say: Do not respond, meaning to...
The Shaykh : In matters of independent legal reasoning, people do not respond to one another regarding matters of independent legal reasoning. For example, one person says: The meat of camels invalidates the ablution, and the other does not hold this view, so he does not respond to him. But as for an innovator who calls to a religious innovation, it is necessary to respond to him, because there is no room for independent legal reasoning in religious innovations, because all the Salaf agreed on rejecting religious innovations. There is no leniency in this. But in jurisprudential matters, for example, people differ in them, and they are a place for independent legal reasoning. We cannot say: Respond to everyone who disagrees with your independent legal reasoning. And as I said: If we opened this door, the whole world would become respondents and those responded to. Yes.
The Shaykh : No, no, he does not mean that.
The questioner : Addition.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : Addition. I say: Some people say: Do not respond, meaning to...
The Shaykh : In matters of independent legal reasoning, people do not respond to one another regarding matters of independent legal reasoning. For example, one person says: The meat of camels invalidates the ablution, and the other does not hold this view, so he does not respond to him. But as for an innovator who calls to a religious innovation, it is necessary to respond to him, because there is no room for independent legal reasoning in religious innovations, because all the Salaf agreed on rejecting religious innovations. There is no leniency in this. But in jurisprudential matters, for example, people differ in them, and they are a place for independent legal reasoning. We cannot say: Respond to everyone who disagrees with your independent legal reasoning. And as I said: If we opened this door, the whole world would become respondents and those responded to. Yes.