Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: (… and if he invites you, then respond to him …)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It contradicts boycotting… for him.
The second condition is that there be no evil present—may Allah have mercy on you—that there be no evil in the place of the invitation. If there is evil in the place of the invitation, then we look: if he can remove it by his presence, it is obligatory for him to attend for two reasons. What are they? The invitation and removing the evil. And if he cannot attend, if he cannot change it, then attendance is forbidden for him, because his attendance entails his sin, and what entails sin is itself a sin.
The third condition is that the inviter be a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, the response is not obligatory. That is to say, if a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection) invites him, the response is not obligatory. Where is this condition derived from? From the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) They said, and his saying Sahih al-Bukhari 1240 means restricting every general statement that has been transmitted. Restricting every general statement that has been transmitted.
It is also required that his earnings not be forbidden. If his earnings are forbidden, the response is not obligatory. Why? Because it entails that you eat forbidden food, and eating forbidden food is not permissible. This is a point of disagreement, because some scholars held that if something is forbidden due to its acquisition, the sin is on the acquirer, not on the one who takes it from that acquirer through a permissible means. This is unlike what is forbidden in itself, in itself, such as stolen goods and intoxicants and the like. But according to the first opinion, if a person’s wealth is not entirely forbidden, but some of it is forbidden and some is lawful, yes, then it is… scrupulousness according to the amount of the forbidden and the lawful. The more forbidden there is, the more preferable it is to stay away from it, and the less there is, the less disliked it is, less disliked. All right, yes.
The questioner : What includes the…
The Shaykh : Inviting by calling out does not fall under this hadith, but it falls under other general statements. Because if someone invites you by calling out, it is obligatory for you to respond to him due to the prohibition of boycotting. Because if you did not respond to him, it would be boycotting. Except if he invites you to a forbidden matter, then it is known that you are not obligated to respond. Yes.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : … they say the majority restricted it because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not mention disobedience except in responding to the invitation to a wedding feastSunan Ibn Majah 1913Sahih (Darussalam) And there is no doubt that the statement that it is general is closer to the truth. The statement that it is general is closer to the truth. And his saying… yes.
The second condition is that there be no evil present—may Allah have mercy on you—that there be no evil in the place of the invitation. If there is evil in the place of the invitation, then we look: if he can remove it by his presence, it is obligatory for him to attend for two reasons. What are they? The invitation and removing the evil. And if he cannot attend, if he cannot change it, then attendance is forbidden for him, because his attendance entails his sin, and what entails sin is itself a sin.
The third condition is that the inviter be a Muslim. If he is not a Muslim, the response is not obligatory. That is to say, if a dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim protection) invites him, the response is not obligatory. Where is this condition derived from? From the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)
The right of a Muslim over a Muslim is six—and among them is—if he invites you, then respond to him.
حق المسلم على المسلم ست - ومنها - إذا دعاك فأجبهThe rights of a Muslim on the Muslims
حق المسلم على المسلمIt is also required that his earnings not be forbidden. If his earnings are forbidden, the response is not obligatory. Why? Because it entails that you eat forbidden food, and eating forbidden food is not permissible. This is a point of disagreement, because some scholars held that if something is forbidden due to its acquisition, the sin is on the acquirer, not on the one who takes it from that acquirer through a permissible means. This is unlike what is forbidden in itself, in itself, such as stolen goods and intoxicants and the like. But according to the first opinion, if a person’s wealth is not entirely forbidden, but some of it is forbidden and some is lawful, yes, then it is… scrupulousness according to the amount of the forbidden and the lawful. The more forbidden there is, the more preferable it is to stay away from it, and the less there is, the less disliked it is, less disliked. All right, yes.
The questioner : What includes the…
The Shaykh : Inviting by calling out does not fall under this hadith, but it falls under other general statements. Because if someone invites you by calling out, it is obligatory for you to respond to him due to the prohibition of boycotting. Because if you did not respond to him, it would be boycotting. Except if he invites you to a forbidden matter, then it is known that you are not obligated to respond. Yes.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : … they say the majority restricted it because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not mention disobedience except in responding to the invitation to a wedding feast