Discussion of the issue of responding to an invitation and its conditions.

The Shaykh : We wanted to speak about the issue of responding, specifically responding to an invitation. As we have passed through in the hadiths, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded responding to an invitation and informed that responding to an invitation is a right that a Muslim has over another Muslim. However, there must be conditions. The first condition is that the inviter must be a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, the response is not obligatory, because a non-Muslim has no right over a Muslim. The second condition is that his earnings must be lawful. If his earnings are forbidden, then the response is not obligatory. But is it permissible? It depends. If it is forbidden in itself, then he does not respond. For example, if a man seizes a sheep by force, then slaughters it and invites people to it, here he does not respond because he would be eating specific forbidden wealth. If it is forbidden due to the manner of its acquisition, such as if the inviter is one who deals in usury or deception or the like, then we say the response is permissible, neither forbidden nor obligatory. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) responded to the invitation of the Jews, and the Jews are known to be consumers of illicit wealth and takers of usury, yet he (peace and blessings be upon him) responded to them. This is because it is not forbidden in itself, but forbidden due to the action of the doer, so it is forbidden only for the doer. Based on this, if this wealth passes to the heirs, it is lawful for them, because the sin is upon the one who earned it. The third condition is that he specifies the invitee, saying, "So-and-so, I invite you to the feast." If he does not specify by saying, "O people, please come," then the response is not obligatory. But is it disliked or not? The correct view is that it is not disliked, and there is no blame on a person to enter among the general people and respond. How many conditions? The fourth condition is that there be no evil in the place. If there is evil in the place, it is considered: if his presence removes the evil, he must attend in order to respond to the invitation and to remove the evil. If he is unable to remove it or alleviate it, then it is forbidden for him to respond, because his response necessitates that he sit with those who disobey Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) says: If you sit with them, then you are like them. And He (Mighty and Majestic) said: Likewise, if you are invited and you do not know, and during your arrival the evil occurs and you are unable to change it, we say here: do not sit after knowledge with the people of injustice, as the Exalted said: The scholars also stipulated for the obligation of responding that it not be on the second or third day. This should be detailed: if a man invited on the second day those he did not invite on the first day due to the narrowness of the place or the like, it appears that the response is obligatory even on the second and third day. But if he added a day or two for showing off and reputation, then his response is not obligatory, and it is not appropriate to encourage responding to him. This is also in the fifth condition: that the inviter not be one whom it is obligatory to boycott. If he is one whom it is obligatory to boycott, the response is forbidden, such as the one who has a religious innovation and invites people to it. Likewise, according to some scholars, one who openly commits sin is not responded to, because of the approval of his action and misleading people with it, because if people know that so-and-so responded to the invitation of so-and-so, they are pleased with him. Then, is the response obligatory at a wedding and others? There are two opinions among the scholars: some say that responding to an invitation is specific to the wedding feast, and as for what is other than that, the response is a recommended practice and not obligatory. Others said that it is obligatory at a wedding and others if the conditions we mentioned are met. It should be said that it is a confirmed recommended practice in matters other than a wedding, unless a legal prohibition results from not responding, such as if not responding results in severing family ties, as if a relative invites him and says, "So-and-so, please come," and he refuses to respond, and severing family ties occurs as a result. Here we say the response is obligatory because of maintaining family ties. Otherwise, the original ruling is that it is a recommended practice. If someone asks: If it is a recommended practice and harm results from it, what is the ruling on responding? We say: it is not possible to perform a recommended practice while harm occurs; he does not respond. The basis for these restrictions or conditions that the scholars stipulate is that the Islamic Shari'ah, from its beginning to its end, came to realize public benefits and avert harms. This is the foundation of the Islamic religion, so anything that violates this foundation is not of the Islamic religion in any way. Yes.