Explanation of the Author's Statement: The Chapter on Naming Someone "Judge of Judges" and the Like
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Reader: "The Chapter on Naming Someone 'Judge of Judges' and the Like"
The Shaykh : If you were to include this so that people pay attention to it, include it in your copies. There are also issues regarding the interpretation of the verse and explaining how it relates to the chapter. All right.
The Reader: "(peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 2143a Sufyan said: It is like Shahanshah. And in a narration: Sahih Muslim 2143b He said: Akhn' means the most vile."
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The Chapter on Naming Someone 'Judge of Judges' and the Like". The author said: "Judge of Judges." The article "al" indicates generality. "Qadi" means judge, and "qudat" means judges. So the meaning is "The Chapter on the Judge of Judges and the Like," that is, naming someone "Judge of Judges" and the like, such as "King of Kings" or "Sultan of Sultans," and the like, and the like, which indicates judgment, authority, and power. Because a judge is not like a scholar. A judge is a mufti who compels, and he has authority. As for a scholar, he is a mufti but has no authority. If, for example, a person or two have a problem between them, he does not compel them. But a judge is a mufti who compels. For this reason, it is said that a judge combines testimony, issuing fatwas, and binding judgment. That is, he combines three things: testimony, because he testifies with his judgment that this is the ruling of Allah, and he also testifies that the right belongs to the one in whose favor the judgment is rendered against whom? The one against whom the judgment is rendered. He is also a mufti because he informs about the ruling of Allah, and informing about the ruling of Allah and His Shari'ah is issuing a fatwa. He is also one who compels because he compels the two parties with what he has judged. So it involves a type of authority, guardianship, and testimony. That is, a type of authority, guardianship, issuing fatwas, and testimony. The point is that "Judge of Judges"—I said that "al" here is for generality, [referring to] the judges. It is known that the "Judge of Judges" to whom judges return, and who has the upper hand over them because he is their judge, this description with this comprehensive meaning is not fitting except for Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This is how this chapter relates to the Book of Tawhid (the oneness of Allah), because whoever names himself with that name has made himself a partner with Allah in what is not deserved except by Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This is how the chapter relates to the Book of Tawhid, and it is an obvious relation. For Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the One who judges, and He is the Judge above every judge, and He is the One to whom belongs the judgment, and to Him returns the matter in its entirety, as Allah mentioned that in the Qur'an.
And it has come before us, and there is no harm in repeating it, that the judgment of Allah is divided into two parts: cosmic judgment and legislative judgment. Cosmic judgment must occur, and it happens in what Allah loves and what He dislikes. Look at His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):[Al-Isra 17:4] This is judgment, but it is cosmic. Is it related to what Allah dislikes or what He loves? What He dislikes, because corruption on earth is not loved by Allah. Indeed, Allah does not love the corrupters, nor does He love corruption. Is that clear? This cosmic judgment must occur, and there is no opposition to it whatsoever. The second type of judgment, or the second part, is legislative judgment, such as His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): [Al-Isra 17:23] Legislative judgment does not necessitate the occurrence of the judged matter; it may occur or it may not occur. Is that so? But it is related to what Allah loves. He does not judge legislatively except with what He loves. As for what He dislikes, He judges by leaving it and avoiding it; He does not judge by its existence and affirmation, but rather by the opposite. So judgment belongs to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) legislatively and cosmically, or legislatively and by divine decree. And by this we know: does judging by other than what Allah has revealed relate to the aspect of Lordship or the aspect of Worship? Does judging by other than what Allah has revealed relate to the aspect of Lordship or the aspect of Worship? To the aspect of Lordship, because this is a judgment, and if it is a judgment, it relates to the aspect of Lordship. So it is a deficiency in the oneness of Lordship: judging by other than what Allah has revealed. Yes.
And the author's statement: "In Sahih... to the end of it".
So what is the relation of this chapter to the Book of Tawhid? Its relation is that whoever names himself with this name has made himself a partner with Allah in what is not deserved except by Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), because no one deserves to be the Judge of Judges, or the Ruler of Rulers, or the King of Kings, except Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). All right.
If you say: If we add "judges" and restrict it to a specific group, or a specific country, or a specific time, is that permissible? For example, if I say: "Judge of Judges of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," or "Judge of Judges of Egypt," or "Judge of Judges of Sham," or "Judge of Judges of Iraq," or the like, is this permissible? Is it permissible? Why? Because it is restricted. And it is known that the judgment of Allah is not restricted. So in that case, there is no partnership with Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Yes. However, it is also not befitting for a person to name himself or be named with that, even if it is permissible, but it is not befitting. Because the soul may be difficult to control if a person feels that he is described as the Judge of Judges of such-and-such a region. Self-admiration and arrogance may enter him, so that he does not accept the truth if it contradicts his opinion. And this is a great matter with its dangers. If a person reaches the point of self-admiration in his opinion such that he sees his opinion as imposed on those below him, then its danger is great. So even on the view that it is permissible, it is not befitting to name oneself with it, nor to accept it as a name for a person or a description of him, nor to be named with it. As I said, this is a man who has a position and is above these people in position, and they return to him. If he is named and announced with this announcement or this description, he is in great danger. Arrogance and self-admiration may befall him, and in that case, he will not accept except what agrees with his opinion. Yes. And secondly: Is it permissible, for example, to say "Judge of Judges of his era" considering the time? His era?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it also restricted? It is restricted, but which is more comprehensive: "Judge of Judges of his era" or "Judge of Judges of Egypt," for example, or Sham?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The era. The era is broader. The reason? Because if you say "Judge of Judges of his era," he becomes the Judge of Judges for the duration of his life in all regions, correct? If you say "Judge of Judges in such-and-such a country" or in such-and-such a region, he cannot be the Judge of Judges after his death. So its restriction by his life is clear, and it becomes restricted by place as well, so it is lighter than saying "Judge of Judges of his era." We mentioned a third restriction; what is it? The restriction by place, and the restriction by time, and the third? That it be said "Judge of Judges" or "Scholar of Scholars" in, for example, fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), the Judge of Judges in fiqh, or the Scholar of Scholars in fiqh, or in 'aqidah (creed), or the like. Is it permissible or not? If it is restricted by time or by place, we said it is permissible, but it is better not to do it. If it is restricted by a discipline, is it permissible? In reality, the requirement of restriction is that it be permissible. But in the matter of fiqh, if we say that fiqh includes the principles of religion and its branches, according to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih Muslim 1037a There is a great generality in it, is there not? It means that the reference of all people in the Shari'ah is to him, and this is a broad generality. So I doubt the permissibility of this, even though it is restricted. It is true that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the Judge of Judges in everything, in legislative matters, cosmic matters, and scientific matters, all matters. And we restricted it to a specific thing, but in reality, this specific thing, especially fiqh, if we make it general for principles and branches, I have some reservations about it in my mind, and abstaining from it is better. All right. If we restrict it by a tribe? Did we say it is more likely to be forbidden or permissible? Permissible? We said this is the Judge of Judges of the family of so-and-so. I think this is one of the most restricted, is it not? So this is permissible. But as I said before, considering the side of the person described with these attributes so that he does not become arrogant and admire himself, I think this is obligatory. For this reason, a man praised another man in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and he said to him: Meaning, it is a great danger. And this does not require us to establish evidence for it, because a person feels it in himself. Because if he is praised, no doubt something of elevation will be in him. But some people, when praised, rejoice in the blessing of Allah and say, "This is a blessing of Allah upon me that I am in the position of praise, not in the position of blame." But with that, he remains humble. And some people, their souls are stirred, may Allah keep us safe, and they are destroyed. Yes.
The student: The term "Shaykh al-Islam" and the like.
The Shaykh : Yes, what do you think of this if we say "Shaykh al-Islam"?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, we are referring to Ibn Taymiyyah as the Shaykh al-Islam, right? What is your opinion if someone were to say, for example, that Ibn Taymiyyah is the Shaykh al-Islam and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab is the Shaykh al-Islam? In an absolute sense, this cannot be correct. In an absolute sense, it cannot be correct, because Abu Bakr is more deserving of this title, is that not so? There is no doubt that after the Prophets, Abu Bakr is the best of creation. How can we say that this person is the Shaykh al-Islam? It is possible to say that not everyone understands by "Shaykh al-Islam" the absolute Shaykh to whom one refers in matters of Islam, is that not so? But he was described with this title because he renewed Islam and had an impact on Islam, and this is a matter about which there is no doubt regarding scholars like these, such as Imam Ahmad and al-Shafi'i and other Imams. There is no doubt that they are among the Shaykhs of Islam, because they had a profound impact. Likewise, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab; there is no doubt that it is correct for us to say that they are Shaykhs of Islam in light of their noble impact on Islam. So, it appears to me that, as my brother Abdullah said, given the acknowledgment of the scholars among themselves and their transmission of this, there is nothing wrong with it. And no one understands by the term "Shaykh al-Islam" that this is the Shaykh to whom one refers in the issues of Islam, absolutely not. But it is known that this man has an impact in the religion of Allah, and thus he deserved this title.
Now, what about the Imam? What is your opinion? The title "Imam" is much easier. Even the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: An Imam of a mosque may have only two people, yet the Messenger called him an Imam. The Imam, but, yes?
The student : This is restricted.
The Shaykh : No, it is restricted by the context, but in terms of the wording, it is absolute.
However, the thing I would like to see avoided is the way people are now expressing themselves. Students of knowledge have come to call everyone an imam, even if his rank is low, for example in hadith or in something else like fiqh. They say, "The imam said so." In reality, we might say that this is a lie, because an imam is one who has followers and was a role model[An-Nahl 16:120] for the ummah. Calling every author an imam is something to be considered. As for one who was a role model and a pillar, like al-Bukhari, for example, or Muslim, or these imams, it is possible to call him an imam. However, we do not say that al-Bukhari's imamate is like the imamate of Imam Ahmad, for example; there is a difference between them according to their impact on the Muslims. But what may be a lie, and may lead to elevating someone above his rank, is this leniency in applying the title of imam. Just as it is also a leniency and a description of a person with what he does not deserve, sometimes it is a belittling of the imams, because if a person imagines that this one is an imam and that one is an imam, what will happen? It will diminish in his eyes; the true imam will be diminished in his eyes. For this reason, it was said:
"Have you not seen that the sword is diminished in its worth *** When it is said that the sword is sharper than the stick"
Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... very broad, "Ayatullah" (Sign of Allah), "Hujjatullah" (Proof of Allah), "Hujjat al-Islam" (Proof of Islam); these are all titles that have appeared later and are not appropriate in reality, because no one is the Proof of Allah. No one is a proof for Allah over His servants except the Messengers.[An-Nisa 4:165] No one is, and no one is "Ayatullah" (Sign of Allah) either, unless we mean it in the broadest sense. And if we mean "Ayatullah" in the broadest sense, then everything falls under it.
"And in everything He has a sign *** indicating that He is One"
As for a miraculous sign that transcends the ordinary, that also does not occur except through the hands of the Messengers. In any case, all these titles should be removed. They should be removed from the lexicon of the Shari'ah. And it should be said: "Scholar" is fine, "Mufti" is fine, "Judge" is fine, "Ruler" is fine, "Imam" if he is deserving is fine. Yes, yes.
The Shaykh : If you were to include this so that people pay attention to it, include it in your copies. There are also issues regarding the interpretation of the verse and explaining how it relates to the chapter. All right.
The Reader: "(peace and blessings be upon him) said:
The vilest name in Allah's sight is Malik al-Amidh (King of Kings). The narration transmitted on the authority of Shaiba (contains these words): There is no king but Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
إن أخنع اسم عند الله رجل تسمى ملك الأملاك، لا مالك إلا اللهThe most wretched person in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection and the worst person
أغيظ رجل على الله يوم القيامة وأخبثهThe Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The Chapter on Naming Someone 'Judge of Judges' and the Like". The author said: "Judge of Judges." The article "al" indicates generality. "Qadi" means judge, and "qudat" means judges. So the meaning is "The Chapter on the Judge of Judges and the Like," that is, naming someone "Judge of Judges" and the like, such as "King of Kings" or "Sultan of Sultans," and the like, and the like, which indicates judgment, authority, and power. Because a judge is not like a scholar. A judge is a mufti who compels, and he has authority. As for a scholar, he is a mufti but has no authority. If, for example, a person or two have a problem between them, he does not compel them. But a judge is a mufti who compels. For this reason, it is said that a judge combines testimony, issuing fatwas, and binding judgment. That is, he combines three things: testimony, because he testifies with his judgment that this is the ruling of Allah, and he also testifies that the right belongs to the one in whose favor the judgment is rendered against whom? The one against whom the judgment is rendered. He is also a mufti because he informs about the ruling of Allah, and informing about the ruling of Allah and His Shari'ah is issuing a fatwa. He is also one who compels because he compels the two parties with what he has judged. So it involves a type of authority, guardianship, and testimony. That is, a type of authority, guardianship, issuing fatwas, and testimony. The point is that "Judge of Judges"—I said that "al" here is for generality, [referring to] the judges. It is known that the "Judge of Judges" to whom judges return, and who has the upper hand over them because he is their judge, this description with this comprehensive meaning is not fitting except for Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This is how this chapter relates to the Book of Tawhid (the oneness of Allah), because whoever names himself with that name has made himself a partner with Allah in what is not deserved except by Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This is how the chapter relates to the Book of Tawhid, and it is an obvious relation. For Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the One who judges, and He is the Judge above every judge, and He is the One to whom belongs the judgment, and to Him returns the matter in its entirety, as Allah mentioned that in the Qur'an.
And it has come before us, and there is no harm in repeating it, that the judgment of Allah is divided into two parts: cosmic judgment and legislative judgment. Cosmic judgment must occur, and it happens in what Allah loves and what He dislikes. Look at His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He):
And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture that, "You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice
وقضينا إلى بني إسرائيل في الكتاب لتفسدن في الأرض مرتينAnd your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment
وقضى ربك ألا تعبدوا إلا إياه وبالوالدين إحساناAnd the author's statement: "In Sahih... to the end of it".
So what is the relation of this chapter to the Book of Tawhid? Its relation is that whoever names himself with this name has made himself a partner with Allah in what is not deserved except by Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), because no one deserves to be the Judge of Judges, or the Ruler of Rulers, or the King of Kings, except Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). All right.
If you say: If we add "judges" and restrict it to a specific group, or a specific country, or a specific time, is that permissible? For example, if I say: "Judge of Judges of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," or "Judge of Judges of Egypt," or "Judge of Judges of Sham," or "Judge of Judges of Iraq," or the like, is this permissible? Is it permissible? Why? Because it is restricted. And it is known that the judgment of Allah is not restricted. So in that case, there is no partnership with Allah (Mighty and Majestic). Yes. However, it is also not befitting for a person to name himself or be named with that, even if it is permissible, but it is not befitting. Because the soul may be difficult to control if a person feels that he is described as the Judge of Judges of such-and-such a region. Self-admiration and arrogance may enter him, so that he does not accept the truth if it contradicts his opinion. And this is a great matter with its dangers. If a person reaches the point of self-admiration in his opinion such that he sees his opinion as imposed on those below him, then its danger is great. So even on the view that it is permissible, it is not befitting to name oneself with it, nor to accept it as a name for a person or a description of him, nor to be named with it. As I said, this is a man who has a position and is above these people in position, and they return to him. If he is named and announced with this announcement or this description, he is in great danger. Arrogance and self-admiration may befall him, and in that case, he will not accept except what agrees with his opinion. Yes. And secondly: Is it permissible, for example, to say "Judge of Judges of his era" considering the time? His era?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it also restricted? It is restricted, but which is more comprehensive: "Judge of Judges of his era" or "Judge of Judges of Egypt," for example, or Sham?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The era. The era is broader. The reason? Because if you say "Judge of Judges of his era," he becomes the Judge of Judges for the duration of his life in all regions, correct? If you say "Judge of Judges in such-and-such a country" or in such-and-such a region, he cannot be the Judge of Judges after his death. So its restriction by his life is clear, and it becomes restricted by place as well, so it is lighter than saying "Judge of Judges of his era." We mentioned a third restriction; what is it? The restriction by place, and the restriction by time, and the third? That it be said "Judge of Judges" or "Scholar of Scholars" in, for example, fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), the Judge of Judges in fiqh, or the Scholar of Scholars in fiqh, or in 'aqidah (creed), or the like. Is it permissible or not? If it is restricted by time or by place, we said it is permissible, but it is better not to do it. If it is restricted by a discipline, is it permissible? In reality, the requirement of restriction is that it be permissible. But in the matter of fiqh, if we say that fiqh includes the principles of religion and its branches, according to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):
He upon whom Allah intends to bestow goodness, He confers upon him an insight in religion
من يرد الله به خيرا يفقهه في الدينYou cut off the neck of your companion
قطعت عنق صاحبكThe student: The term "Shaykh al-Islam" and the like.
The Shaykh : Yes, what do you think of this if we say "Shaykh al-Islam"?
The student: Permissible.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, we are referring to Ibn Taymiyyah as the Shaykh al-Islam, right? What is your opinion if someone were to say, for example, that Ibn Taymiyyah is the Shaykh al-Islam and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab is the Shaykh al-Islam? In an absolute sense, this cannot be correct. In an absolute sense, it cannot be correct, because Abu Bakr is more deserving of this title, is that not so? There is no doubt that after the Prophets, Abu Bakr is the best of creation. How can we say that this person is the Shaykh al-Islam? It is possible to say that not everyone understands by "Shaykh al-Islam" the absolute Shaykh to whom one refers in matters of Islam, is that not so? But he was described with this title because he renewed Islam and had an impact on Islam, and this is a matter about which there is no doubt regarding scholars like these, such as Imam Ahmad and al-Shafi'i and other Imams. There is no doubt that they are among the Shaykhs of Islam, because they had a profound impact. Likewise, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab; there is no doubt that it is correct for us to say that they are Shaykhs of Islam in light of their noble impact on Islam. So, it appears to me that, as my brother Abdullah said, given the acknowledgment of the scholars among themselves and their transmission of this, there is nothing wrong with it. And no one understands by the term "Shaykh al-Islam" that this is the Shaykh to whom one refers in the issues of Islam, absolutely not. But it is known that this man has an impact in the religion of Allah, and thus he deserved this title.
Now, what about the Imam? What is your opinion? The title "Imam" is much easier. Even the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
When the imam says
إذا أمن الإمامThe student : This is restricted.
The Shaykh : No, it is restricted by the context, but in terms of the wording, it is absolute.
However, the thing I would like to see avoided is the way people are now expressing themselves. Students of knowledge have come to call everyone an imam, even if his rank is low, for example in hadith or in something else like fiqh. They say, "The imam said so." In reality, we might say that this is a lie, because an imam is one who has followers and was a role model
Indeed, Abraham was a [comprehensive] leader, devoutly obedient to Allah
إن إبراهيم كان أمة قانتا لله"Have you not seen that the sword is diminished in its worth *** When it is said that the sword is sharper than the stick"
Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... very broad, "Ayatullah" (Sign of Allah), "Hujjatullah" (Proof of Allah), "Hujjat al-Islam" (Proof of Islam); these are all titles that have appeared later and are not appropriate in reality, because no one is the Proof of Allah. No one is a proof for Allah over His servants except the Messengers.
so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers
لئلا يكون للناس على الله حجة بعد الرسل"And in everything He has a sign *** indicating that He is One"
As for a miraculous sign that transcends the ordinary, that also does not occur except through the hands of the Messengers. In any case, all these titles should be removed. They should be removed from the lexicon of the Shari'ah. And it should be said: "Scholar" is fine, "Mufti" is fine, "Judge" is fine, "Ruler" is fine, "Imam" if he is deserving is fine. Yes, yes.