Note: This transcript was generated using AI and can contain inaccuracies.
Bismillahi wassalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi salallahu alayhi wasallam. Amma ba'da. Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
Brothers and sisters, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you and to introduce you to a brand new show and a brand new podcast called The Hot Seat.
To understand a little bit more about The Hot Seat, we first have to understand the context of the modern-day world we find ourselves living in, in the year 2019.
It is a world in which perhaps—perhaps—there are more doubts, misconceptions, and misinterpretations that are thrown around about the religion of Islam than in any other period of time in the history of mankind.
The internet is the number one source used by people globally to acquire information on any topic, and it is riddled and full of false notions and erroneous ideologies about the religion.
Our kids, ourselves, are being exposed to this kind of information on a daily—if not daily, then at the very least weekly—basis. And whether we know it or not, whether we choose to accept it or not, it is having an effect on ourselves, our hearts, our minds, and ultimately our understanding of this beautiful religion.
To further complicate the problem, many of us find ourselves living in Western societies where the governments and the social norms and pressures are constantly trying to redefine what is good and what is bad, what is accepted and what is rejected, what Islam is and is allowed to be, and what Islam is never allowed to be.
All of this, my brothers and sisters, ultimately leads to confusion. It leads to ignorance. And if Allah permits, it can lead to misguidance.
The Hot Seat has therefore been designed—with the permission of Allah alone—to counter these kinds of modern-day, contemporary issues head-on by using the knowledge and the guidance of the Muslims of the past: the early generations of Muslims, the best of generations.
There's not a single Muslim on the face of the planet today that would doubt the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala completed our religion for us over 1400 years ago, and that that completed, holistic, perfect religion is just as applicable now in the year 2019 as it was back then.
We truly do have classical solutions for contemporary problems.
However, this isn't your normal, average Islamic lecture series. First of all, it's not a lecture—it's a discussion between two parties, often opposing parties, in an attempt to reach the truth, bi'idhnillah.
And secondly—and perhaps more importantly—it's a unique, one-of-its-kind, interactive podcast where you, from the comfort of your own home, have the opportunity to vote for and to choose the topic we'll be discussing on the show.
You also have the chance to ask your own questions on these contemporary issues and to grill the speaker if you feel like he hasn't been grilled enough on the show itself.
I'll be releasing details of how you can do both of those things at the end of this episode.
But for now, without any further ado, let's get into this episode of The Hot Seat.
As-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
Ustadh Abdul Rahman, welcome to The Hot Seat. Thank you very much for joining me today.
So this, as you know, is episode one. And as I mentioned in the introduction, it's talking about contemporary issues that we're dealing with in the year 2019—the modern-day world.
And actually, this was your idea. You approached me with this, to have this kind of podcast dealing with modern-day issues.
Do you want to tell us a bit more about why you think this is important for the Muslims in 2019?
As you know, the Prophet ﷺ had told us that there are going to come trials and tribulations as time goes on. And as we get closer to the Hour, the problems that the Ummah is going to be going through, the groups that are going to be formed, the ideologies that are going to be presented.
The Prophet ﷺ already told us. He prophesied this 1400-something years ago.
And he didn't just prophesy that there are going to come problems and there are going to come deviated and misguided concepts. But rather, he ﷺ clarified and explained the way out of it.
And how is a Muslim meant to deal with those ideologies and those beliefs and those misconceptions?
So I've seen what's taking place in the Da'wah scene. And I don't want to say people haven't responded to these ideologies and these groups—and good work has been done, and efforts have been exerted in that regard.
But I've not yet seen—this is my humble opinion—someone who's taken these issues, these contemporary problems, and then responded from classical textual evidence.
They didn't come with anything new, but they used the Qur'an, they used the Sunnah, they used the statements of the early generations—who we believe, in our tradition, are the most noble and most righteous.
As the Prophet ﷺ said in the hadith: "The best of generations is my generation, then those who come after, then those who come after." So since they're the best, the khairiyyah—the virtue that's connected to these people—is not just in their actions, as many people believe: how they prayed, how they read Qur'an, but also in terms of their knowledge and the knowledge that they possessed.
So what I want you to do is take all of these groups—whether they are within Islam or outside Islam—and debunk their misconceptions. Respond and dismantle their beliefs, all based upon nususul wahiya (textual evidences), from the Qur'an, from the Sunnah, and from the statements of the early generations.
That's why I thought a podcast that could do that is greatly needed. Because, as you know, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—he responded to just about every group at his time, whether they were groups within Islam or outside Islam.
He responded to them, and he really responded to them with the Qur'an and the Sunnah. He proved that the answers are within those two.
And so, I want to bring back to the young youths who are studying in academic universities, who are learning psychology, who are learning philosophy—these ideas are being brought to them and presented to them—I want to give them the thiqa, the confidence, that their answers are not far-fetched. It's actually right under their nose. It's in the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
So that's why I think, inshaAllah.
Jazakallahu khayran.
I think, from a personal perspective, one thing that I'm really looking forward to is having some user interaction. So the fact that the viewers at home get to vote for which topic we're going to be discussing on certain episodes—and the fact that this is a podcast and not a lecture—you have the opportunity to go into detail. More detail than you would have in a lecture.
So as you know, this is episode one, so we haven't released the vote, and the topic that we're going to discuss today was one that we chose—or specifically, I chose—and presented to you. And that is:
Who can you trust in the modern-day da'wah scene?
And the reason why this is a contemporary issue is because the advent of social media has allowed many, many people—wa lillahil hamd—to speak about Islam. And that can bring some good, and it can also bring some bad.
And the purpose of today is to discuss those good things and those bad things—and how we can be careful and how we should be cautious in terms of who we take our knowledge from.
So the first question I'll ask you is:
Why is this even important? Why do we need to be cautious about who we take knowledge from?
So before I answer your question, there's one thing—a disclaimer—that I want to put out there for everybody, inshaAllah ta'ala.
All of the topics—not just this session, inshaAllah ta'ala—but every single topic that we have, I really want the listeners, those who are watching, inshaAllah ta'ala, that if they have a deep-rooted negative belief, if they have a dark perception of a topic that we're going to speak about or handle, and they've got a preconceived notion, that they come, inshaAllah ta'ala, with a clear mind.
Okay?
They come with a clear mind, and they put aside everything that they believed before, and they really look at what we're trying to bring—the evidences and the proofs that we're trying to provide—and our arguments, all based on their merits and all based upon their authenticity and the way that we extract the rulings and we deduce the arguments from it.
So that's something I want, inshaAllah ta'ala. And I wouldn't want somebody to come already believing something, and when they do come to the discussion, all they're trying to look for is flaws in the argument or flaws in our discussion.
Because if you're trying to do that, then I can reassure you now—we will have that. We will have that because we're humans.
The poet said:
وَمَنْ ذَا الَّذِي تُرْضَى سَجَايَاهُ كُلُّهَا كَفَى الْمَرْءَ نُبْلًا أَنْ تُعَدَّ مَعَايِبُهُ
Who is the person whose character is entirely pleasing? It is enough nobility for a person that their faults are countable.
So that's the first thing that I request, inshaAllah ta'ala, that you don't have any psychological resistance—that, inshaAllah ta'ala, you give this podcast a chance to hear our arguments.
In response to your question—the dangers of innovation and also the people of innovation—it stems from the meaning of:
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
And as you know, لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله is the foundation of our religion. When a person comes into Islam, that's the first thing that they are told to say. They're told to say:
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
The part that concerns this podcast is:
محمد رسول الله
What does it mean when somebody says, "I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"?
What he's saying, in essence, is that, "I follow him in everything—in all my speech, in all my actions. I follow Nabiyyullah Muhammad in my belief system."
In simple terms, you're saying, "I'm upon his Sunnah—his way." Sunnah means the way of the Messenger, alayhi salatu wasalam.
And so when you say, "I'm upon the way of the Prophet, alayhi salatu wasalam," you're also saying, "I am against the way that is opposite to his way—the newly introduced ways."
So you connect yourself to his Sunnah, and you also show allegiance to the people who are holding on to that Sunnah with you. You have love for them. And you also free yourself from innovation and the people who come with innovation—you free yourself from them.
And we're going to be using terms like as-Sunnah, so it's good to understand it now—which means: the Prophet's way, alayhi salatu wasalam, and his tradition, his speech, his actions.
Sunnah means whatever is attributed to the Prophet in terms of speech, action, consent, the Prophet's character, and the way he looked, alayhi salatu wasalam—all of that is Sunnah. That's what Sunnah means.
And innovation means everything that was introduced into the religion without any prior example. There's no example that came before it—meaning this person brought it either themselves or someone within Islamic history introduced it into Islam. It wasn't practiced at the time of the Messenger, alayhi salatu wasalam. It was not practiced at the time of the companions.
That's an innovation.
I want to say quickly—and we're going to speak about that in greater detail, insha’Allah—there's one hadith that the Messenger ﷺ advised his companions. This is basically the hadith of ‘Irbād Ibn Sāriyah. Aṣḥāb al-Sunnah narrated that the Messenger ﷺ advised his companions and said:
“وَعَذَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَسِلَمًا مَوْعِظَةٌ وَجِلَتْ مِنْهَا الْقُرُوبُ وَضَرَفَتْ مِنْهَا الْعُيُونُ” ("Our Messenger gave us a farewell—a farewell advice—so powerful that our hearts trembled from his words, and our eyes began to water, as if it were a final speech given just before death.")
The Messenger mentioned three usūl (fundamental principles):
- تجريد التوحيد وتحقيق العبادة (Stripping away all but monotheism and ensuring proper worship): That is, one must adhere to tawḥīd and follow the Messenger ﷺ.
- التمسك بالجماعة (Sticking to the community): This means following the way of the Ṣaḥāba and sticking with the Muslim leader—avoiding uprising, protest, or demonstration against the Muslim leader—while listening and obeying him, as long as he does not command anything that is ḥarām.
- الابتعاد عن البدعة والمُبْتَدعِينَ (Staying away from innovation and the innovators): The Prophet warned us against this.
This hadith, therefore, teaches three foundations that the people of the Sunnah hold on to; it was one of the final farewell statements of the Messenger ﷺ. What it tells us is essentially prophetic advice to be careful of innovators and to stay away from them—exactly what the Prophet did.
If I may build on that a bit further: If you actually ponder on the Qur’an and the Sunnah, you will find that our religion is built upon two foundations. The first is to establish a foundation to clarify the truth—to tell the people what is right, what Allah wants, and what pleases Him (subhanahu wa ta'ala). The second foundation is that our religion warns against evil in all its forms: warning against innovation, sins, the sins of sinners, and what innovators propagate. This is the basis on which our religion stands.
It is sad because what you see nowadays is that people try to please others—they seek the veneration and glorification of particular individuals, which prevents them from speaking the truth or asserting what is right. They see what is wrong right in front of them, but they won’t say anything; they think, “What does it have to do with me?”
I wanted to remind them of a hadith of the Prophet ﷺ—narrated by al-Imam al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and also by al-Hakim in his Mustadrak on the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī—where the Messenger ﷺ said:
“Do not let one of you prevent the veneration and the glorification of the people you are trying to honor—whether a particular imam or a particular community—so that, because of that, you choose not to speak the truth. Do not let that stop you from speaking the truth when you know that this is the way Allah wants you, that this is what Allah has commanded, and that this is what Allah has prohibited, simply because of the people. Do not withhold it.”
Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī reported that when the Prophet ﷺ said that, he cried. The companion who narrated the hadith said, “We saw things done in our presence, but we chose not to speak against them because of the veneration and glorification of people.” This Sahābi recognized it, and it moved him deeply.
I hope that this can help many people out there who are overly concerned with how many followers they have, or how many people are with them, and who measure the success of their daʿwah by the number of followers they attract. Insha’Allah, we will speak about that in great detail later. I believe that should be the foundation of our podcast: we are not here merely to please anyone. I always say that it’s not about concealing or withholding the message—that’s not what Islam is about. You must speak the truth, but be mindful of how you say it. Choose the words you use to preach to someone; do not simply say it however you like and then complain, “Oh, they don’t want to take the truth. I’ve been speaking to him for so long.” If you speak in a despicable manner, you will only harm the message.
The message must be conveyed in a well-mannered way, as Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) said to Nabiullah Mūsā and al-Hārūn: “Go to Firʿawn; he has exceeded his limits; speak to him gently.” The gentle message you use for Firʿawn may humble him and allow him to come to his senses. Allah knew that Firʿawn was not going to repent, but this is a lesson for you. Some great scholars used to say, “You are not better than Mūsā,” for he was commanded to speak in that manner. And the person you are addressing is not worse than Firʿawn—he is a Muslim brother of yours.
I think that balances and does not conflate the two points: conveying the message and how you convey the message.
Another point: In our podcast, we are more focused on what people need rather than what they want. I believe that a da‘wah effort should focus on what the community needs, on what is important for them, and on solving their problems—not on simply giving them what they want, since sometimes people want things that are bad or detrimental for them. We need to focus on what the people truly need.
Insha’Allah, with that, I hope Allah brings khayr and barakah from this effort. I believe you have laid down some really important fundamentals, which we will revisit later throughout this episode.
You spoke in detail about staying away from innovators and warning against them, but as you know, we do not select certain ahādith or certain āyāt from the Qur’an in isolation to base our religion on; rather, we view the religion as a whole. There are other verses in the Qur’an and other ahādith that discuss, for example, having good thoughts about your brother, not suspecting him, not backbiting him. This does not contradict the concept of being cautious of innovation or of innovators. In truth, the entirety of the Qur’an warns against evil and its people and instructs you to follow good and its people. In fact, the Qur’an is called al-Furqān because its purpose is to distinguish right from wrong.
When Nabiullah Muḥammad came to Makkah and called people to Islam, the accusation against him was that he was dividing the people. That was because he was calling them to a message that he did not alter to fit into their society; he delivered the message as it was. Let me mention some evidences—perhaps some listeners have not even heard these evidences. Our mother ‘Ā’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, and she is considered the most knowledgeable woman in Islam. She corrected some of the other companions. She said that one day the Messenger ﷺ recited a famous āyah—this is recorded in Bukhārī and Muslim, the two most authentic books—and when he recited it, she said, “First of all, what does this āyah mean?” There is much meaning in the āyah that we can dedicate entire episodes to, but in summary, the āyah states that the Qur’an is divided into two types: ambiguous and vague verses, and verses that are clear-cut. Allah mentioned that people whose hearts are sick—whether they are non-Muslims or Muslims—tend to choose the ambiguous verses, those vague verses that can be interpreted in more than one way, and they make that their fundamental principle, dismissing and pushing aside the clear-cut verses. Allah referred to such people as sick-hearted individuals. They are, indeed, sick-hearted.I'll give you an example that can clarify that for you. For instance, Allah uses in the Quran the word "we" – and we now know that in English it’s used for one of two reasons: either out of royalty (i.e., referring to a person who venerates himself out of royalty) or it can be used for a person who is speaking and has somebody else speaking with him, meaning plurality. It can be used for one of those two. A sick-hearted person will gravitate toward that usage. The fact that it’s "we" (and not "I") is because they don’t want to refer to the clear-cut verses that show Allah; when He uses the word "we," He only means Himself, and He is speaking out of royalty. For example, in one ayah, He does not want to go to that verse, so a sick-hearted person uses "we." Our Messenger, when reciting that verse, said to his wife Aisha: "if you see those people, those ambiguous verses – okay, they are the ones Allah has named, the ones Allah pointed out in this verse – Aisha, be cautious of them; be vigilant and diligent, and stay away from them."
So, in the Quran, we know that there are verses which are unclear, that are ambiguous. The poet Sahib al-Maraqi said, "There are verses whose meanings we will never even know, like, for example, letters that Allah kept the knowledge for Himself." And there are some verses which are unclear but become clear when you refer them back to the clear verses.
What would a sick-hearted person do? He would not take all of these verses that we’re going to mention; he would say, "Well, I want to take the one here and the one there." Our mother Aisha was warned by the Prophet to stay away from that type of behavior.
Now, the question is: Aisha has the knowledge to determine who is saying what and how to respond—but he still told her to stay away from them. In another ayah, Allah said, "This is My path, and do not follow the path of the deviating people who went astray. Don't follow those people's paths; they will take you away from what pleases Allah; they will throw you into the ditch; they will throw you into hell."
Another ayah of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala states that if you come across people who speak about the verses of Allah without knowledge, they are distorting and misinterpreting the Quran. "Don't sit with these people – the innovators, the misguided people. Don't sit with them; leave them, get away from them." In that same verse, if you do sit with them and choose to continue being with them, Allah clearly says, "You are like them."
Now, some may say, "Oh, but this is what it means; how do you know it's referring to the innovators and whatnot?" Let me give you the statement of the scholars. One of the great, illustrious scholars of Islam—bona fide, with a well-known tafsir—stated after discussing that we must stay away from sinners (for example, a person drinking alcohol whose gathering you cannot be part of, etc.), that we must also stay away from people of innovation and misguided desires. Allah is more befitting if I tell you to stay away from people drinking alcohol, committing zina, lying, or cheating, than merely to stay away from innovators. It's even more fitting.
Look at what he then said: the overwhelming majority of the mufassireen have stated that the people referred to in this verse are every innovator who introduced innovation into this religion until the Day of Judgment. That's one ayah.
Another ayah I want to mention is a powerful, extremely powerful statement by al-Imam al-Shawkani. I truly believe this statement is enough for us to conclude the whole point. It is this:
"I was really amazed at how he spoke about this topic. He said in this verse, 'There is a lesson, a reminder: those who permit those who sit with the innovators—(which innovators? Those who distort the speech of Allah)—every innovator, you will see that he distorts the Quran, whether by distorting it physically by changing it (and, Insha'Allah, that won't happen because Allah will protect it) or by changing its meanings (to change the meaning), and also, Insha'Allah, that won't happen because there will always be people to protect the religion.' "
So, this verse is a great reminder for those who permit or like to sit with the innovators—those who distort the speech of Allah (azza wa jalla) and play with the Book of Allah, bringing everything back to their desires. When you say something to them, they reply, "I am not inclined to it; I don't like it," reflecting their misguided desires and corrupt innovation. If a person does not reject these people, if he does not debunk and dismantle their beliefs and change their ways, then at the very least, he should stop sitting with them. You see, these people persist in their misguidance and continue going against Allah's commandments, falling into their whims and desires.
Then, let the least that you can do be to walk away from them and not sit with them. Look what he then said: "That's very easy and it's not hard." I like the statement—I love it. He said, "They would take your sitting with them. You, sitting with them—if you've been with them—they will say to the people, 'We are upon guidance; Imam so-and-so is with us, Shaykh so-and-so, Ustad so-and-so is with us. How can we be misguided? How could we be astray?'"
That's what they would say: your participation with them—sitting with them, even cutting the cake with them—is an additional problem. What is the additional problem? Because you couldn't change their evil (which was already a problem), sitting with them creates another problem: it makes the general public believe that your affiliation verifies them. They will think, "Mashallah, he is with them; he is up there." In that sense, sitting with them is a greater evil than merely listening to evil.Another evidence that I want to mention, insha'Allah, is the statement of the Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned by Muslim in his Muqaddimah. It is important that people understand that if you quote a hadith from the introduction of Muslim, you cannot simply say “Muslim narrated” and leave it at that. You must clearly state that it is in the Muqaddimah of Muslim. The reason is that the Muqaddimah does not have the same conditions as the main book; there can be weak narration in the Muqaddimah, but this particular narration is authentic—Muslim narrated it in his Muqaddimah.
Abu Hurairah said that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Before the Hour strikes—the ending of the Hour—there will come among you people who will talk to you, preach, and convey the so-called message of Islam to you, and they will say things that you have never heard before and that your forefathers never heard.” He instructed: “Stay away from them; be cautious of them.”
Who is saying this? The Messenger (ﷺ) of Allah, Nabiullah Muhammad, is saying: “Stay away from them; be cautious.”
And I want to say to the people listening to this podcast: After the evidence I have given, no one should argue against Allah and His Messenger. Allah said in the Qur'an that the only people who argue against the verses of Allah are the disbelievers. How did Allah say that? (I don’t fully understand that part—it seems to divide the people. The people who argue against it are those who have desires and who are afflicted by illness, and perhaps that person should be worried for himself and concerned for himself that he would question such evidences.)
This is where I am at. I think I have provided sufficient proof for staying away from innovators.
Can I give an example of the Prophet himself warning against individuals by name? I have examples. For instance, Fatima bint Qays was a woman who came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, “O Messenger of Allah...” She mentioned that two men had come for her, seeking her hand in marriage, and she wanted his counsel on whom to choose. What did the Prophet (ﷺ) say to her? He did not take up his sword—sorry, he did not “throw his stick from his shoulder” (i.e., he did not immediately condemn them); rather, he warned her in clear terms.
In another narration, the Prophet (ﷺ) said something like, “He beats the women” (meaning he does not condone the behavior). In other words, he advised her not to marry one of them. The second noble companion, Mu‘awiyah, was said to lack wealth, so she was advised: “Don’t go for him; instead, marry Usama ibn Zayd.”
Now, focus on this: The Prophet (ﷺ) is warning a female companion about the marriage proposals of these two noble companions. The Messenger (ﷺ) first did not mention any good qualities of these two; he immediately pointed out what he faulted in them, which he felt was necessary to tell Fatima bint Qays.
Secondly, the Messenger (ﷺ) made it clear in his speech, without engaging in backbiting, that he was stating a reality before them.
If you go to Riyad al-Salihin — everyone knows that book, right? It’s a loved book, right? Now, we [have] a chapter, a chapter where he called it “The Time When Backbiting is Permissible.” And from them — do we find this six times? He said, “It's from them, it's from them,” is if you see a person who's walking to a teacher, wanting to take knowledge from him, and that teacher is corrupt, then he said it is permissible to backbite him and to say that, “Stay away from this teacher, don’t go to him.”
Now, what we [are] saying — that’s exactly what we’re talking about now. Exactly what he said.
Another example I want to show you is that Aisha — he said a man sought permission to enter upon the Prophet ﷺ. When the Prophet saw the man — the Prophet ﷺ, what did he say? Or he heard him. He said, “Evil is this man. Evil is this man.”
Now, Nawawi commented on this statement — this hadith — in his Sahih Muslim. He explained it. He said this is an indication and an evidence that if an evil person comes and you believe that it’s going to harm the people, that you speak against them.
And another time — we know the famous hadith when the Prophet said about a companion, he said: Abu Sanabil was a companion. He gave a verdict in an issue, and he got it wrong. The Prophet said, “Abu Sanabil lied. He lied.”
A man came to him, and he said to him, “It’s hard on me.” A man came to Imam Ahmed and he said to him, “It’s actually hard on me to speak about the people. I can't speak about people. I can't do that. I cannot do that. I can't say so and so is this and so and so is that. I can't do that.”
So Imam Ahmed said to him, “If you become quiet, and I then become quiet as well, when will the ignorant one know who’s right and who’s a fudool (interfering person)? How are people gonna know? If I go quiet, and you go quiet, and everyone goes quiet, then no one will know who is real and who is fake. No one will know.”
Wallahi, you’ve convinced me. You’ve convinced me. But there is still a few issues outstanding. And that — first of them is, our discussion so far has been about innovators. And it’s easy to warn against a clear-cut innovator, who you know is opposing the Sunnah. But the question is — as is the case with many, many speakers out there who are giving da’wah — what if you’re not... what if they haven’t made clear what they’re upon, and you’re not 100% sure if they’re an innovator? From them people, I’m assuming it’s okay to take knowledge.
I do want to say something which is important, and that is: taking the people out of the Sunnah is something very hard, okay? It’s not an easy matter. A person shouldn’t be hasty and jump on it — especially if you have no knowledge. That’s not your field to speak about it.
But what I do want to say is: warning against a person who is an innovator and it’s clear to you that he’s an innovator — and I will mention how you can know it’s clear to you, and what makes it clear. I will speak about that, I will not push that aside — we should warn against that person. And it’s upon the — it’s an amanah — it’s a responsibility on [you] to warn the people against that person and say, “Don’t take that knowledge from that person.”
And this issue is not a disputed issue, by the way. It’s a consensus. I’m saying that no two scholars from the pious predecessors differed on that.
Let me mention one consensus for this issue: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, ‘Abd al-‘Awwad, Abu Yaseed al-Raqqashi, and Sulaiman ibn Musa — all of them I have mentioned — they told me, “Stick with the Jama’ah, Ahl al-Sunnah,” and they prohibited me from — and they warned me from — [others]. The Salafi unanimously agreed upon [this], and it’s worrying that after that, a person would still question and say, “Really? What are you guys talking about?”
Abdullah ibn Abbas said: لا تجالس أهل الأهواء “Don’t sit with the people of innovation.” فإن مجالستهم ممرضة للقلوب “For indeed, sitting with the people of innovation brings illness to the heart.”
Some people, they say تسكية النفس — “We want to purify our hearts.” Yes, we need to purify our hearts. But one of the things that taint the heart is to sit with the innovators, to take from them, to be with them.
It makes the heart sick, and it destroys your heart. And it's what brings darkness to your heart and dots to your heart and makes your life hard. So stay away from the innovators.
Now, people who fall into mistakes or people who come with shortcomings and they're in the da’wah scene — we have to understand: what type of mistake have they fallen into? This is something very important that's [to be] understood.
Because — I think you're going to explain — the question here is: if you're saying stay away from innovators, how does one know who has fallen into innovation?
Okay, let me mention what makes a person from the Sunnah. Al-Imam Al-Safarini in Lawami' al-Anwar — he says something very powerful. He said:
الذين إنما يأخذون He’s talking about the people of the Sunnah.
أهل السنة — who are they? They are the ones who take:
إنما يأخذون عقيدتهم — they take their belief من المأثور — that which is transmitted عن الله — from Allah عز و جل.
So you want to recognize who's right and who's wrong? Okay — they take their religion, their belief system — okay — they take it from what? عن الله — from Allah عز و جل في كتاب — that which He mentioned in His Book, the Qur’an أو في سنة النبي — or that which the Messenger mentioned ﷺ أو ما ثبت وصح عن السلف الصالح — and that which has authentically been transmitted from the pious predecessors.
Who? من الصحابة الكرام والتابعين الفخام — the Sahabas were the students of the Prophet, and the students of the companions.
So here, stop. A person will say to you, “I take the Qur’an, and I take the Sunnah.” The مفرق الطرق — the thing that will really allow you to know if this person is real or if he's telling the truth — is when you say to them: “This verse that you have used for this point — who from the Sahabas understood it in this way? Who from the early generations, who the Prophet praised?”
Because look what the Prophet said. The Prophet said something very powerful — look what he said:
He said, “My Ummah is going to be divided — seventy-three sects.” سَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَىٰ ثَلَاثٍ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً — Seventy-three groups. كُلُّهَا فِي النَّارِ — All of them are in Hellfire إِلَّا وَاحِدَةً — Except for one.
Not two. Not three. Not four. This goes against those who say: “Those who say that everyone’s going to go to Jannah from different places — this group, that group, this group, and this group — we’re all going to be, insha’Allah, from different parts of Jannah.”
No. When it comes to belief system, there’s only one saved group. There’s not multiple groups. إِلَّا وَاحِدَةً — The Prophet spoke — the most eloquent man. He said وَاحِدَةً. He didn’t say two. He said one group.
Who are they now?
The Sahabas, they said, “Who are these people, O Messenger of Allah?”
He didn’t say it is so-and-so, so-and-so. The Messenger gave what is called a Sifatu-l-Kashifah — he gave a continuous description. Anyone who comes with [it] is from that saved group.
You don’t have to sign an allegiance to a particular Imam or a Sheikh. You don’t have to meet a person and shake his hand. None of that. You don’t have to have a bond with a group of people.
No, you don’t have to. This is all that's needed from you. What is it?
مَن كَانَ عَلَىٰ مِثْلِ مَا أَنَا عَلَيْهِ الْيَوْمَ وَأَصْحَابِي “Anyone who is upon that which me and my companions are upon today.”
So, if you've told me a verse, and you really can’t take that verse back to an interpretation of a companion — then I’m worried about you. You’re scaring me. You’re coming with a newly introduced belief now.
Because I was told that the saved group is the one who are what? Who are upon that which the Prophet was upon and that which his companions were upon.
So, if a person is holding on to the view of the companions — even if that view is weak — But the Sahaba said it — we will respect you, because you’re holding on to the statements of the companions. And all it now then takes is — it’s an ijtihadi-related issue.
It's an ijtihādun sāʾigh — it’s a permitted difference of opinion, because you've got a group of companions. Even though they will still say, "We don't agree with that view of Ibn Abbas," or "that view of so-and-so because of another Sahabi’s statement," but we will not take you out of the fold of Ahlus Sunnah. You will not be taken out of the fold of Ahlus Sunnah because you're holding on to a view of the Sahabas.
Now I want to say something. If a person takes the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the consensus — pay attention — he takes the Masdar at-Talaqqi. Masdar at-Talaqqi means the source from which you take your religion.
We, Ahlus Sunnah — I hope we're from them in shāʾ Allāh Taʿālā — we take our religion from the Qur'an. We take it from the Sunnah, and we take it from the consensus of the early generation.
Okay — and I say early generation because it's hard to affirm consensus. It's hard to confirm it after the Sahabas. It’s hard — not that it can’t be done, but it’s hard. And I’ll bring the statement of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, in shāʾ Allāh Taʿālā.
If anybody doesn’t take those evidences — doesn’t take the Qur'an, or the Sunnah, or the consensus — then he is an innovator, and the proof is not established against him. The proof is not established against him.
This is the statement of Abu al-Qāsim Hibatullāh al-Lālakā’ī and Imām Abū ʿUthmān al-Ṣābūnī. A scholar said this. Shaykh al-Islām mentioned this.
If a person says, “I’m not going to take the Qur'an as an evidence,” or “I’m not going to take the Sunnah,” and he uses his logic — that person is an innovator. That minute he said it. There’s no need to bring the proof against him. No, no, no.
He’s already done it himself. Everyone’s going to deal with him as an innovator. لَا تُقَامُ عَلَيْهِ الْحُجَّة — the proof is not established on him.
Okay — but if a person goes against Ahlus Sunnah in an aṣl from its uṣūl — a fundamental principle — like for example, he goes against Ahlus Sunnah in a mas’alat al-īmān, Okay — he takes maybe the view of the Murji’ah or the view of the Khawārij — then tuqāmu ʿalayhi al-ḥujjah — the proof is established on him.
So there are fundamental points I want to mention — that Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah believe that if a person goes against those fundamentals, the proofs are established on him.
Okay — if he goes against the Masdar at-Talaqqi — the source from which we take our evidence — no, no, no, no — you’re an innovator straight away. And the proof is not established on you.
But if you go against Ahlus Sunnah in the fundamental issues that are in there, the proof is going to be established on you. You’re going to be told what you're upon is wrong. You’re going to be advised accordingly.
And those uṣūl, I’m going to mention them fast, and we can go over them, in shāʾ Allāh Taʿālā, later:
- Al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt — Allah’s names and attributes.
- Al-Ṣaḥābah — the companions and the position regarding the companions.
- Al-Qaḍāʾ wa al-Qadar — predestination and what Allah has ordained for creation.
- Masāʾil al-Asmāʾ wa al-Aḥkām — names and rulings found in the Qur'an, like īmān and kufr, etc.
- Al-Waʿd wa al-Waʿīd — the warnings and the promises in the Qur'an, and how we deal with them.
These are five uṣūl that you find in the books of ʿAqīdah. If anybody goes against Ahlus Sunnah in those five, proof is established against them. If he persists upon them, then he’s an innovator — and the dealing of the innovators will come into place.
These five — Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah talks about them in ʿAqīdat al-Wāsiṭiyyah — he summarized them all. A person studies it there.
Also, Abū Bakr al-Ismāʿīlī in his Kitāb Iʿtiqād Aʾimmat al-Ḥadīth, he mentions it there. ʿAqīdat al-Salaf Aṣḥāb al-Ḥadīth by ʿUthmān al-Ṣābūnī — he mentions it there as well. Abū al-Qāsim al-Taymī — he mentions it in his Kitāb al-Ḥujjah fī Bayān al-Maḥajjah. Abū al-Qāsim Hibatullāh al-Lālakā’ī — he mentions it in his Kitāb Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunnah.
It’s in the books of ʿAqīdah.
The third thing I want to mention is: If a person comes with so many sub-branches — for example, he says a man can shave his beard — okay, that’s a fiqh issue. It’s a farʿ. It’s not even a fundamental issue. It’s a sub-branch.
Okay — even though that’s a question, because it is a consensus, by the way — maybe the example might not be correct.
But let’s say he says, for example: “Anal sex is permissible,” And then he says, for example, “You can drink with your right and left...”
And then he says, for example, music is ḥalāl. And then he says many fiqh issues — he brings them and says: "Permissible, permissible, permissible, permissible, permissible." These are all sub-branches. They are what? They are sub-branches — furūʿ.
Now make it naṣīḥah. You've got established rules. Proofs are going to be established upon you. If you persist, you’re an innovator. Okay? That is what the scholars mentioned.
In Dalāʾil al-Kalimah, you find two groups of people — they are extreme: either in exaggeration or extreme in negligence. Who are they?
There’s a group who say: "Everything — you need to establish the proof against the person. You need to take the proof." And another group of people: "No, no, no, no — I don’t establish proof on anybody. He said a mistake — he’s off the manhaj."
So, as I mentioned — this is what the Salaf said. I can put all their speech in context, but it’s better just to give the framework, in shāʾ Allāh.
Right now, you’ve given a lot of detail on why we should leave alone innovators and not even sit with them, as you said. But my question is: What if you have an individual — like there are many individuals in the world today — who are not openly calling to innovation. Do we treat them the same as the other innovators you’re speaking about?
Without a doubt, if you look at the books of the Sunnah, the books of the scholars, the books of ḥadīth as well — the scholars do distinguish between the one who calls to his innovation and the one who doesn’t.
If a person is not calling to his innovation, he takes a totally different ruling from the one who is calling to it. So if he’s calling, and if he isn’t calling — it’s two different rulings.
So would you not agree that many of the speakers today are not calling to their innovation? They’re rather calling to doing good deeds — like reading the Qur’an, being good to your parents. Is that something you’d agree with?
You see — that’s the thing. I mean, when I say “a lot of the speakers,” then that would mean I would have to look at statistics. And I would have to… I don’t know. I can’t say all of them or a majority of them.
But what I can say is — there are a portion of them who I can definitely say: Calling to misguidance is not — a person doesn’t have to come and say: “I’m Dajjāl,” or “I am here to misguide you.”
It’s done in different ways and different forms.
I mean, let me just read a speech to you, which I think is very relevant to the question you just asked. Yeah — this is a statement of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah — they were away from what was really important for them to understand.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, he says:
فَالْبِدْعَةُ تَكُونُ فِي أَوَّلِهَا شِبْرًا The innovation at the beginning is just a handspan.
ثُمَّ تَكْثُرُ فِي الْأَتْبَاعِ حَتَّى تَصِيرَ أَذْرَاعًا وَأَمْيَالًا وَفَرَاسِخَ And the followers — that handspan innovation becomes an arm span. Then it becomes a mile. And then it becomes continents.
It just grows — the innovation. So it’s not like you’re going to see a big innovation straight away — it creeps in.
Another statement — Mufaḍḍal ibn Muḥallal said:
لَوْ كَانَ صَاحِبُ الْبِدْعَةِ إِذَا جَلَسْتَ إِلَيْهِ يُحَدِّثُكَ بِبِدْعَتِهِ حَذَّرْتَهُ وَفَرَرْتَ مِنْهُ If the innovator — the person you're taking knowledge from — if you sat with him, and as soon as you sat with him he told you his innovation, you would run away from him. You would not want to sit with him.
وَلَكِنَّهُ يُحَدِّثُكَ بِأَحَادِيثِ السُّنَّةِ فِي بُدُوِّ مَجْلِسِهِ But rather, he tells you aḥādīth of the Sunnah — at the beginning of the gathering.
ثُمَّ يُدْخِلُ عَلَيْكَ بِدْعَتَهُ Then he introduces to you his innovation.
فَلَعَلَّهَا تَلْزَمُ قَلْبَكَ فَمَتَى تَخْرُجُ مِنْ قَلْبِكَ؟ And it may stick to your heart — and then when will it actually leave your heart?
Okay — but what I can see from my personal experience is: Many of the people giving daʿwah — they might not necessarily be clear-cut innovators, like you're saying. But at the same time, you might not even put them into the category of clearly — as you mentioned — understanding the Qur'an and the Sunnah based upon the understanding of the companions. Rather, it's unclear exactly where they fall in between those two groups.
Those kinds of people — they’re still calling you to good deeds. You can listen to them.
Okay, that’s a very important thing, which is: We would really have to ask ourselves — what makes a person be a person who's doing good and who isn't really doing good?
I would say — my question would be: What is your message following? What protocol is it following? What order and sequence is it following?
Are you making the order for the daʿwah? Are you just making it as you wish?
Because for me — daʿwah is tawqīfiyyah — meaning it’s something that’s set. You and I can’t come and make our own way in daʿwah.
Okay — but when you say for you, that means someone else can have a different opinion?
No — I’m saying: When the Prophet ﷺ said:
وَأَنَّ هَذَا صِرَاطِي مُسْتَقِيمًا فَاتَّبِعُوهُ “This is My path, so follow it.”
Okay — there are certain things we’d agree are good deeds. Reading the Qur’an is a good deed — we’d agree on that. And I’m saying that that person should call to the Qur’an. He should call to righteous actions — as in plain Sunnah. He should call to that.
But that shouldn’t be the essence of his daʿwah.
Okay — the essence of his daʿwah should be then?
Calling to Tawḥīd — and calling people to stay away from innovation. That’s what lā ilāha illa Allāh stands on.
And Imām Muslim narrated this in his Ṣaḥīḥ, through the narration of Anas ibn Mālik, that the Prophet ﷺ said:
لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ...
The hour will not strike.
حتى لا يقال في الأرض — Until no one is saying on the earth: Allah, Allah.
There will come a time when people are not even saying “Allah, Allah.” Meaning, there's total ignorance of who Allah is, the meaning of Allah, and the meaning of la ilaha illallah. People won’t even say Allah anymore.
And do you know why that will come about? It will come about when people start becoming generic in their da'wah. They don’t really want to touch on the real problems the community is facing. So, let’s just be more general.
To be very honest, some speakers — if you actually take their da'wah and you replace the word “Allah” with “God” — a Christian could listen to it and be fine with it. Okay?
Would you agree that there are some du'aat in the world today that are calling to tawheed? No doubt. No doubt about that? Yes.
So what is wrong with having one speciality calling to tawheed, and someone else calling to generic good deeds? What’s the problem with that?
As I just said: Da'wah is not something that you and I choose — what we want to start with and how we want to do it. Da'wah is set.
The Prophet ﷺ — in the ayah, what did he say?
قُلْ هَذِهِ سَبِيلِي أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ عَلَى بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِي وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ This ayah says: قُلْ هَذِهِ سَبِيلِي — This is my path. أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ — I call to Allah عَلَى بَصِيرَةٍ — with insight. And who else does the same thing? Those who follow me.
So, the people have to follow the Messenger — and how he called to Allah. That’s clear in the ayah. The ayah is so clear.
You and I are not... we don’t have the right to come and say: “You know, I don’t want to call to tawheed, it’s a controversial issue. I’m here to bring people together, you know, and I’m going to look for topics that can bridge people.”
That’s a fallacy. That’s a mistaken belief.
Even in the modern world, where we have so many different groups opposing Islam, so many enemies of Islam, so many issues — can’t we just come together and work together on that, and leave our differences aside, considering we’ve got big, big problems we’re facing?
That is not the truth — when you look at it.
Because if you look at the great scholars like Ibn al-Jawzi, ‘Abd al-Ghani, ‘Abd al-Wahid al-Maqdisi, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah — they said that the internal enemy, meaning the innovator, is far worse than the external enemy outside.
I’ll give you an example:
If you're under siege, and you have a fortress around you — but there’s a person inside the building right now who wants to open the window for the disbelievers, the non-Muslims, or other people to enter the house — you have to start dealing with this person inside first.
So when you try ignoring this person and say, “You know, we’ll work together on what we agree on, and we’ll put our differences aside on what we differ on” — then the truth really is: the minute he gets power, he will expose the mistakes within Islam.
And ponder on history — والتاريخ يعيد نفسه — history repeats itself. That’s a reality.
What destroyed the Abbasid Khilafah? It was the Rafidah who opened the doors for the non-Muslims. Who brought the Tatars into the Muslim world and caused Muslims to be killed and massacred? They were the innovators.
Who placed Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah — al-Imam al-Mubajjal, al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal — in prison, behind bars, over the issue of khalq al-Qur’an?
Who did that?
Ibn Hazm has a book called الفصل في الملل والأهواء والنحل, and in this book he mentions: The people who pushed the ideology that the Qur’an is not preserved — were the Rafidah.
Ibn Hazm is saying this.
When they said that the Qur’an was changed by Abu Bakr and Umar — it gave the non-Muslims the opportunity to say: “Your text isn’t preserved — why are you talking about ours?”
Even though Allah says in the Qur’an:
“Cooperate with each other upon birr (righteousness) and taqwa (God-consciousness).”
How do you reconcile that?
Now this is very important — that it’s understood correctly.
First of all: we have to agree that we, as individuals, do not like innovation — nor do we like innovators. Okay, agreed. I’m with you on that.
If we agree upon that — if a situation happens, a calamity befalls the Muslims — and I have been known, and I have had a position regarding debunking, dismantling, and calling against innovation — I have been known. My position is well known when it comes to people who go against Allah’s commandments, who fall into sins — it’s well known. I have defended the Sunnah to my ability.
If a calamity befalls the Muslims, and there’s no way this calamity can be solved unless the Muslims, with their differences, come together to solve this issue — shar’an, it is permissible. There’s nothing wrong with this.
Right this moment— But that doesn’t mean we overlook our differences.
No — not in any way, shape, or form.
I still have differences with you, and I’m not going to accept that from you.
But right now — they’re going to close the masajid. And that’s a problem you’re going to face and I’m going to face.
And we take this evidence from Surah Hudaybiyah — the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. The Messenger ﷺ — he sat with the non-Muslims, and he came to a contract with them. A treaty with them.
Ibn al-Qayyim — in his great book — he mentions that this can be used for the innovators, and the fussaq (the openly sinful), the criminals, the wrongdoers, and even the innovators.
He uses that to say: you can sit with them — if it has a common good for the Muslims.
But that being said — your position, your view, your stance — it is well known.
Regarding innovators, your position is known. Regarding innovation itself, you've spent your time spreading the Sunnah. And to be very frank with you, and to be honest, a lot of people, they don't understand that calling to that Sunnah right now and pushing the Sunnah today has become very hard. It's always going to be hard, but it's become even more harder today than any other time historically.
Let me quote for you the hadith of the Prophet, alayhi salatu wasalam, and what he said. And I want to bring you the kalaam of the ulama and how they understood, how they understood that particular — how they understood that particular hadith. Look what he said: Al-Imam Al-Sabuni, he said: "Wa man tamassaka al-yawma bis-Sunnah..." — anyone who holds on to the Sunnah now. He's an Imam of the early generation — Imam of the Sunnah. He's talking about his time. Imagine now — he said: "Wa man tamassaka al-yawma bis-Sunnah..." — anyone who holds on to the Sunnah today.
Which Sunnah? "Bisunnah Rasulillahi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam..." "Wa amila biha..." — and he implements it. "Wa istiqama ‘alayha..." — and he's steadfast upon it. "Wa da’a ilayha..." — and he calls the people to it. "Kana ajruhu..." — his reward today is "awfara wa akthar..." — more vast, more bigger, more greater "min ajri man jara ‘ala hadhihi al-jumlati min al-i’tiqadi fi awa’il al-Islam wal-millah." — than the early generation. Than the companions themselves as well.
Why? "Idha Rasulul Mustafa..." — because the Messenger, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, "qala..." — he said: "Lahu..." — for those people is "ajru khamseena..." — the reward of fifty.
Faqeela, the companions, they said: "Khamseena minhum?" — Fifty from them? And the Prophet said: "La, minkum..." — No, from you. Fifty from the companions.
We know that today, the ghuraba’, the person calling to the Sunnah, the standing up to the Sunnah, implementing the Sunnah, has become very hard. Look at Imam Sabuni. Is that really the case, Mustafa?
Without a shadow of a doubt. In a modern day world, do you think that calling to the Sunnah is a difficult thing? Yeah — the mocking, name-calling — that’s "mimma la yantatihu fihi kabshan..." — as the Arabs say, “Two goats will not headbutt on that.” That’s a reality in front of us.
Another statement I'm going to mention, insha’Allah ta’ala — and I think it's important: Abu Uthman al-Sabuni mentions, bi-sanadi wajadatan, Hatta balagha Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri — from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri — that he said: "Ta’leemu sunnatin..." — teaching one Sunnah "afdalu..." — is more virtuous "min ‘ibadati mi’atay sanah..." — than doing ibadah for 200 years.
And this is the truth, wallahi. When you look at many people — people are now more fascinated with the person who prays qiyam ul-layl, a person who will fast the fast of Dawud — and I'm not belittling that. I think it's a righteous action, and I think a Muslim should work to be doing that. I'm not belittling that. But what I'm saying is that people will be mesmerized with that person. They will be mind-boggled. They will be gobsmacked and say: “Wow, this person is righteous!” “He's the remaining of the companions!” — the way they deal with him.
But if a person stood up and he spent his life and dedicated his energy to warning against innovation, exposing innovators — for them it's like: “Yeah, all he does is he backbites people. All he does is he backbites people.” And that isn’t the case.
To call to the Sunnah and to oppose innovation was the da’b us-salaf — it was the doing of the salaf and their way. And the thing is, how would we deal with these texts? Are we going to rub them off the books? We’re going to peel them out?
This is the reality. You cannot ignore this. These are multitude. I am only taking a pinch of it because we only have...
I think we agree with the issue of innovation, and I think you brought enough evidence and sufficient amount of evidence to prove your point there.
The issue still remains — and I go back to it again — that you're sitting here saying that someone who is calling people to do good deeds, as well as tawheed, but tawheed is not their main da’wah. But they’re still calling people to read the Qur’an, be good to their parents.
Okay — you know you're repeating this point. Let me give you some examples. This point you keep stressing on. As you're saying, they're actually doing something wrong and bad.
Okay — let me give you a story. This story, insha’Allah ta’ala, will shine some light for you.
Okay — again, as I said — I'm going to be ibn ilayh al-karim — every single thing I bring, I'm going to bring stories from the books of Hadith, from the tarajim of the scholars — the biography of the scholars — and quotes of people who we — when I cannot — we're not like even a nail.
And before I mention these quotes, I want to say something. I want to say — don’t judge — and memorize this principle: "Annahu la yuhkamu ‘ala shay’in..." — Nothing can, we can never make a judgment based on something — "bi atharihi wa nata’ijihi..." — based on the outcome and the results that somebody produces.
We need to look at your principles that you stand on, and what are you—what's your message? If you're doing humanitarian aid and you're supporting the needy, that's good. That is good. But Bill Gates does that as well. Warren Buffett does that as well. That doesn't make their message right. Does that make sense? Missionaries do that as well. They go to Africa and they feed the needy. They build wells. But they're not calling to the Qur’an. Exactly. That doesn't make—these people are...
So let me—I'm going to show you examples, because those are disbelievers. Now I'm going to show you people who are believers.
Al-Imam al-Dhahabi mentioned—he said: "Kana al-Mansur..." — Abu Ja'far al-Mansur is an Abbasid leader. He used to venerate—yu’azzim—Ibn ‘Ubaid. He used to venerate Amr ibn ‘Ubaid. Who's Amr ibn ‘Ubaid? Amr ibn ‘Ubaid is the leader—the head. Him and Wasil ibn ‘Ata—they were the heads of the deviated group we refer to as the Mu’tazila. The Mu’tazila are the people who are clearly innovators.
We’re—again, to remind you—we’re talking about people who are not open about the innovation. We don't know whether they're clearly innovators. They're halfway in between. We're not clear about them. That’s who we’re talking about. I'm going to come to that point. That's a very good point. I see where you're coming from. It's a good point.
Mansur—Abu Ja’far al-Mansur—he said, you know, Al-Dhahabi is saying: The leader of the Muslims got fooled by Amr ibn ‘Ubaid. Just like you're seeing this person that you're talking about to be a person of, you know, good—what’s the problem? He’s going into good. Abu Ja’far al-Mansur felt the same thing about Amr ibn ‘Ubaid, his leader—from the head of the Mu’tazila. He saw nothing wrong with him.
Look what he did. Amr ibn ‘Ubaid entered onto the leader—Abu Ja’far al-Mansur. They had a conversation. And when he was about to leave, Abu Ja’far al-Mansur said, “I'm going to give you something. Here—what money do you need?” He gave money to him.
And he looked at him and said, “I haven’t come here for money, and I don’t want your money.” And he walked away from him. And it’s a more detailed story, but I don’t want to go into it.
As he was walking away, Abu Ja’far al-Mansur, he said:
كلهم يمشي رويداً، كلهم يطلب صيداً غير عمرو بن عبيد “All of them have an ulterior motive. All of them have something they want.”
Look what he said: “But Amr ibn ‘Ubaid is a real man. He’s a real righteous man.” “What’s wrong with him?” — that’s what he’s trying to say.
Look what Al-Dhahabi said. He said: اغتر بزهده — he got deceived by the asceticism of Amr ibn ‘Ubaid. He saw Amr ibn ‘Ubaid to be a person who doesn’t want the dunya—wants the akhirah. And so he thought to himself: “Whoa, this guy is good.” وإخلاصه — he got deceived by the sincerity of Amr ibn ‘Ubaid. وأغفل بدعته — and he was heedless to his innovation.
So many people are looking at this man and the good things that he sees and says, But there's innovation here right now.
Another story. That’s not answering my question. You understand that, right?
It does answer the question—because this person’s calling to salah, calling to zakat, calling to salam, calling to the recitation—with no clear innovation upon them. No clear innovation. They just haven’t made it clear. They haven’t made it clear upon the Sunnah. Yeah, and they're not calling to tawheed as much as you’d like them to. They’re calling to tawheed, but not as much as you’d like them to. But they’re still calling to good deeds.
It’s the person’s calling. I mean, when we say: “OK, a person’s calling to tawheed,” I myself am not saying that— You know, how many times—how many videos has he said it in?
OK. It’s not the main call. It’s not the main call—dawah. Then I'm now saying that he's not following the procedure and the sequence set by the Prophet.
OK. I can question him, because the dawah of the Messenger, alayhi salatu wasalam, was built upon tawheed. That was what he was built on.
I mean, Nabila Nuh—let’s take Nabila Nuh for an example. Sah? Nuh, alayhi salam—what do you know about his message? He was calling people for 950 years only to worship Allah alone. How much people followed Nabila Nuh?
Allah said: وما آمن معه إلا قليل — only a few believed in Nabila Nuh. He didn’t care about numbers. The people who followed Nuh was an amount that could go on an ark—with animals in there. You know—animals were in there as well.
He — that Prophet Nuh — we know his message was built upon Tawheed. You don't know anything more than that about him. So how can I see a da'i, and I don't see any of that?
All I see is talk about political engagement. He's talking, he's an activist. He's talking about social problems. Only, only.
Fair point. Okay, I understand.
No, it's a fair point. But even like you just mentioned numbers just now — some of these speakers, who, like you're saying, don't necessarily focus on Tawheed, but they're still calling to good deeds — some of them have millions and millions of views on their videos and millions and millions of followers on social media.
So you're sitting here and saying that Allah is misguiding millions of Muslims — not because they're drinking alcohol or they're falling into zina — but because they want to watch an Islamic lecture?
Well, I think that point is: أوهام بيت العنكبوت — it's a very weak argument. The reason why I say it's a weak argument is because, I mean, I’ve had priests and Christians, when they argue, they say the same argument. They say, “So you Muslims are trying to say that Allah was fooling the Christians when He changed Jesus into whoever He changed him into? That He wanted to fool the Christians?”
Allah has a way, سبحانه وتعالى — اختبارًا وامتحانًا — He tests His creation. Allah tests, سبحانه وتعالى. And the way Allah tests, سبحانه وتعالى, is through good and bad: وَنَبْلُوكُم بِالشَّرِّ وَالْخَيْرِ فِتْنَةً ۖ وَإِلَيْنَا تُرْجَعُونَ Just because you have numbers doesn’t indicate that you're upon the truth. And it doesn’t mean Allah is guiding or misguiding.
— Why? Expand on that.
Because the Prophet ﷺ, as I said in a hadith — صلى الله عليه وسلم عليه — he said that this Ummah will divide into 73 groups, and all of them will go to the Hellfire except one. Not 72 are going to go to the Hellfire — 72 are going to go to the Hellfire, and one will be saved. And that one could be the smallest.
That goes against many textual evidences, where Allah says: وَقَلِيلٌ مِّنْ عِبَادِيَ الشَّكُورِ — Little from My slaves show gratitude. وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ — The majority of the people don’t know. وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ — If you obey the overwhelming majority of people, they will misguide you from the path of Allah.
Rather, the Messenger ﷺ told us in a hadith — the hadith of Ibn Abbas in the Sahihayn — the Prophet ﷺ said: عُرِضَتْ عَلَيَّ الْأُمَمُ — The nations were presented to me. فَرَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ وَمَعَهُ رُهَيْطٌ — I saw a Prophet, and with him was a small group. وَالنَّبِي وَمَعَهُ الرَّجُلُ وَالرَّجُلَانِ — And I saw a Prophet with one or two people. وَرَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ وَلَيْسَ مَعَهُ أَحَدٌ — And I saw a Prophet with no one at all with him.
So what are we going to say now? That that Prophet was misguiding the people? That his message was wrong? No, of course not. So we can't say that.
Number doesn't really show anything. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and many of the Salaf said: أَنتَ الجَمَاعَةُ وَلَو كُنتَ وَحدَك — You are the Jama'ah, even if you are alone.
Number is nothing. If we take that argument, then the Christians should be upon the Haqq — they're more than us in number.
— Yeah, okay. I agree. Do you think — on a slight tangent — do you think your stance is a little bit immature? I've heard some other people who also held the same stance as you, but they feel like they’ve grown out of it. They've matured, and therefore they've left that stance.
You see, that's the sad reality. It's actually not maturity. That person hasn’t matured — that’s my honest answer. That person has actually gone astray.
And I said at the beginning of my discussion: مَا يُجَادِلُ فِي آيَاتِ اللَّهِ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ۖ فَلَا يَغْرُرْكَ تَقَلُّبُهُمْ فِي الْبِلَادِ People turning away from this can only be — as the Prophet ﷺ said: فَإِن لَّمْ يَسْتَجِيبُوا لَكَ فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّمَا يَتَّبِعُونَ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ — If they don’t respond to you, Muhammad, in all that you’ve said, then know that they are following their desires.
You see, I ask those same people questions. I surrender, and I give in, and I say: “You know what? I’m immature, and your stance is maturity.”
How do I not know you're going to say, 10 or 15 or 20 years from now: “I was immature again — that stance of mine was wrong again. My current stance is...”
— Exactly.
— You’ve said it before. And this is a statement Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman (رضي الله عنه) mentioned. He said that from the signs of a person’s destruction is that they accept something once upon a time, saw it to be good, and then they reject it.
And the opposite: they reject what they once upon a time accepted. And then he said something powerful: إِيَّاكَ وَالتَّلَوُّنَ، فَإِنَّ دِينَ اللَّهِ وَاحِدٌ — Beware of constantly changing colors, for the religion of Allah is one.
It doesn’t make sense that you’re changing so much, but the religion is one.
— But the reason they’re changing is because their knowledge is growing. They’re studying year on year, becoming more knowledgeable, and they've seen the errors of their previous ways. Some of these speakers have attended some of the most prestigious universities in the world, and they’ve continued to study after that and seen the errors of their past ways.
Not if they’ve studied in places where doubts have been brought forward to them, and they presented themselves to shubuhāt and calamities and hardships, and they've become misguided from that. That doesn’t really mean they’ve matured — what’s happened is they’ve been indoctrinated, and Shaytaan has had his way with them.
Because the Prophet ﷺ told us: يَا مُقَلِّبَ الْقُلُوبِ، ثَبِّتْ قَلْبِي عَلَى دِينِكِ — O Turner of the hearts, keep my heart firm upon Your religion.
And in the Qur’an, Allah says: رَبَّنَا لَا تُزِغْ قُلُوبَنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَيْتَنَا — Our Lord, do not let our hearts deviate after You have guided us.
Deviation happens. People change.
Wasīl ibn ʿAtā’ was from the students of Hasan al-Basri. And he left Hasan al-Basri’s gathering and walked away from him.
How can someone so knowledgeable be misguided like that? How can that happen?
I mean, Shaytaan — if we say “knowledge” — Shaytaan gathered the most knowledge. He’s lived through everything. He’s been in Jannah. He saw, he heard, he spoke to Allah ﷻ.
You see, it’s arrogance and stubbornness. And this guidance — you have to understand: وَمَن يُهِنِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِن مُّكْرِمٍ — If Allah chooses to humiliate you and not give you guidance, then there is no one who can give it to you. This is Allah’s will.
I mean, look at Abu Talib. Anyone better than Abu Talib in what he did for the Prophet ﷺ?
His uncle — Abu Talib made poetry for the Prophet. He said:
وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتُ بِأَنَّ دِينَ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ دِينًا لَوْلَا الْمَلَامَةُ وَحِذَارُ مَسَبَّتِي لَوَجَدْتَ لِي بِذَاكَ سَبْحًا مُبِينًا
He said: “Indeed, I know that the religion of Muhammad is the best of all religions. If it wasn’t for the blame of the people and fear of insult, you would have found me openly declaring it.”
You see? So Abu Talib was boycotted by Quraysh for the Prophet ﷺ. He was thrown into a valley. He starved. He was boycotted. He went through hardship.
And Allah still said to the Prophet ﷺ: إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ، وَلَـٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ You do not guide whom you love, but Allah guides whom He wills.
Imagine — if the most truthful, honest, and caring individual is calling you to Islam, and you don’t take it from him — and you’ve known him to be trustworthy?
He is your son, and you choose not to take his message. To be honest, that person — would he take a message from a scholar, from a student of knowledge? So it’s not that the person is mature, to be very honest. It’s just giving it fancy names: “I’ve matured out of this,” or “I’ve become mature.”
It’s like calling alcohol “juice,” and calling drugs “food,” and calling riba “interest.” When did it become interest? Allah is fighting it — Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā.
So when they call it “maturity,” it’s just giving it a fancy name. And this is something Shayṭān is known for: يُسَمُّونَهُ بِغَيْرِ اسْمِهِ — They give it a name other than its real name. The real name is misguidance.
You've just become misguided — that's what’s happened to you. You have not become mature.
— How far do we take this? Because you mentioned at the start, before we spoke, you quoted a line of poetry which said something like: Everybody makes mistakes when they speak. So someone falls into a mistake, falls into an error, and we label him an innovator. Other people fall into mistakes and errors, and we say: “It’s just a mistake — he's still from Ahl al-Sunnah.” Why is that contradiction present?
That’s a very good question. We look at نَوْعِيَّةُ الخَطَأ — the type of mistake that the person falls into. There’s no one who’s free from mistakes — Wallāhi, everyone is going to make mistakes. Everyone is going to have shortcomings.
You see, the issue isn’t just that the person made a mistake — it’s what type of mistake they made. So we look at the nature of that mistake. We observe it. We analyze it. We look at it.
If that mistake reaches bidʿah — innovation — then we deal with it as an innovation.
— What kind of mistake? Give me an example of a mistake that reaches innovation.
An ʿaqīdah mistake. For example, a person says that Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī are all in the Hellfire — for instance. Or he says that Abū Bakr and ʿUmar are in the Hellfire. That’s an extreme statement. That’s a creedal issue — right?
— So it’s a fundamental issue this person is going against, right?
Yeah. Or for example, a person says: “I don’t want to take single narration in ʿaqīdah.”
Or the Names and Attributes of Allah — is that a fundamental issue?
— A fundamental issue.
Imām al-Nawawī fell into that. But we still call him from Ahl al-Sunnah?
Beautiful — this is a good question now.
You’re asking whether we apply this ruling — of taking someone out of Ahl al-Sunnah — on Nawawī or not. I’m talking first about the taʾṣīl — the foundational principle. We have to first agree that going against Allah’s Names and Attributes is an innovation.
— Okay.
The second question is: does it apply to Nawawī?
— Yeah, the first part we agree on.
So I want to bring out a principle here: Not everyone who falls into innovation is necessarily an innovator. Not everyone who commits an innovation becomes an innovator.
— Explain what you mean by that.
The same is true as: not everyone who does kufr is a kāfir.
— Okay, fine. Explain what you mean by that.
Beautiful. If a person goes against Allah’s Names and Attributes, and they fall short in that — Yes, it's an innovation. But I said before: the proof has to be established upon them.
We have to go to them and tell them that what they are upon is wrong and incorrect.
There are three points to keep in mind:
1. If a person goes against Ahl al-Sunnah in their source of evidence — where they take their rulings from —
This is called Masdar al-Talaqqī — the sources of derivation. Which are: al-Kitāb, al-Sunnah, and al-Ijmāʿ — the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and consensus.
— Okay.
The Qur’an is the first evidence. What’s the proof that we have to follow the Qur’an? It’s the verse: اتَّبِعُوا مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ Follow that which has been sent down to you from your Lord, and do not follow besides Him other allies.
What has been sent down is the Qur’an and the Sunnah — both were revealed. Because: وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ He does not speak from his own desire — it is but a revelation revealed.
So the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ is the second form of revelation. That’s why it’s referred to as al-waḥyān — the two revelations.
2. The third evidence is Ijmāʿ — consensus.
What’s the evidence for Ijmāʿ?
The verse: وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows a path other than that of the believers — We will turn him to what he has turned to and roast him in Hell, and what an evil destination.
When this verse was revealed, who were the believers? The companions.
So what did Allah say next? If you oppose their path, then you will be left to your destruction.
That means: if you go against the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the way of the early generation, then you are on misguidance.
Allah also says in another verse: وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ The first to accept Islam among the Muhājirīn and the Anṣār, and those who follow them in excellence — Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him.
So again — Allah is pleased with the Muhājirīn, the Anṣār, and those who follow them. We’re not from the Muhājirīn. We’re not from the Anṣār. So we can only be from the third category: those who follow them.
3. If a person opposes Ahl al-Sunnah in all three sources — Qur’an, Sunnah, and Ijmāʿ — then we do not need to establish the proof upon them.
No problem. That’s it. If a person goes against Ahl al-Sunnah in five fundamental issues—the first one is Allah’s names and attributes—or he goes against Ahl al-Sunnah in the issues of the companions, or he goes against Ahl al-Sunnah, for instance, in the issues of promises (waʿd) and warnings (waʿīd).
So:
- Masā’il al-asmā’ waṣ-ṣifāt,
- Masā’il aṣ-ṣaḥābah,
- The issue of al-waʿd wal-waʿīd (promises and warnings that are in the Qur’an),
- Asmā’ wal-aḥkām (names and rulings that are in the Qur’an),
- The fifth: qaḍā’ wal-qadar (divine decree).
If a person goes against Ahl al-Sunnah in any of those five, then the proof needs to be established upon them.
Okay, so Nawawi went against Ahl al-Sunnah in one of those five.
Which is Allah’s names and attributes.
Yes, correct. But not in its totality. He affirmed that Allah is above His Throne—Nawawi did that.
Okay, there were certain aspects.
But there were some characteristics, of course, in his Sharḥ of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, in which he did ta’wīl—he didn’t go according to the Salaf regarding it. But we will say that this is a mistake that came from Nawawi. We won’t say he fell into innovation.
Why? Because the person who says that would have to prove to me that the proof (ḥujjah) was established against Nawawi, and he chose not to follow it.
We’re saying that in all the years Imam Nawawi was alive, giving daʿwah to Islam, being involved in Islam—the truth wasn’t established upon him? You believe that?
Of course, I’m going to have ḥusn aẓ-ẓann of him. I see a man who’s explaining the second most authentic book. I see a man who served the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ. I saw a man who dedicated his life to explaining the textual evidences.
That being said, he really loved and was passionate about the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.
So, if a person wants to take him out of Ahl al-Sunnah because of a fundamental issue in which he went against Ahl al-Sunnah—one of those five—they would have to clearly prove to me that the ḥujjah was established and that Nawawi knowingly rejected it.
If they can’t do that, I’m not going to base it on speculation. You have to clearly prove to me it was established upon him.
Beautiful.
I apply the same thing to the speaker we were speaking about earlier.
True.
Who is not as strong in Tawḥīd as you’d like him to be, but he’s also not openly upon innovation.
Why can’t we use the same ḥusn aẓ-ẓann for him? Has the proof been established against him? Have you spoken to him?
That’s the point now.
Jamīl, I agree with you. If a speaker is speaking and he falls short on a concept from the uṣūl of Ahl al-Sunnah, the proof needs to be established upon him.
Okay. Tuqāmu ʿalayhi al-ḥujjah. The proof needs to be established on him. And the maḥajjah—whatever is blinding him—needs to be removed.
If that hasn’t been done, then no one has any right to label him as an innovator.
And when we’re talking about someone who is not focused on Tawḥīd as much as you’d like— Which one of those five does that fall into?
As in?
As in, we have a speaker whose main daʿwah is not calling to Tawḥīd, but he's calling to other good deeds. And you said to be an innovator, a person has to go against one of those five things.
So he’s going against Masā’il al-asmā’ wal-aḥkām—because the word daʿwah is a Sharʿī term used in the Shariʿah. It has a definition. It means to call the people to Allah ʿAzza wa Jalla—not to call the people to yourself so you can get more followers.
Because the verse says: قُلْ هَذِهِ سَبِيلِي أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ "Say, this is my path—I call to Allah." Not to yourself.
Okay.
So if I see you calling to yourself, then I think there’s a big flaw in your daʿwah.
You need to be calling to Allah. And what does it mean to call to Allah? You’re calling to His Rubūbiyyah, His Ulūhiyyah, and His Asmā’ wa-Ṣifāt.
You don’t have to use those exact terms that I just used.
Okay.
Now we’re talking about someone who is openly calling to innovation. According to your stance, we are not allowed to take knowledge from them. Agreed?
No.
Okay. Then why was I in your class and you were teaching al-Muʿallaqāt by Imam Abū Maʿālī al-Juwaynī?
Yes. Two responses.
First of all—sorry, just to clarify—he was not just an Ashʿarī, he was the head of the Ashʿarīs.
So let me make something clear. Nawawi is not an Ashʿarī.
Okay.
But Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, Abū Maʿālī al-Juwaynī, Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī, Abū Bakr Ibn al-Fawraq, Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī—these are Ashʿarīs.
Okay.
But Nawawi is not Ashʿarī. Ibn Ḥajar is not Ashʿarī. Al-Bayhaqī is not Ashʿarī.
Okay, and you taught al-Muʿallaqāt, which is one of the works by someone you just said is an Ashʿarī.
It’s true.
Okay, how do you explain this?
Two responses. The first: Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said that Imam Abū Maʿālī al-Juwaynī repented at his last moments.
Okay.
That’s one statement.
Even though that itself—from a scientific perspective, to be very honest—Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement fīhi naẓar (there’s room to question it).
Because he only repented from one form of innovation to another form.
Which was what?
He left ta’wīl and went to tafwīḍ.
So he’s still an innovator.
Exactly. That doesn’t help you.
Yeah... but Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah did say that.
Okay, fine.
The second thing is a concept we need to understand now. You asked me: Can a person go and take knowledge from an innovator?
Yes.
Okay.
And I said to you what?
You said no.
I said no.
Jamīl.
Because the aṣl is that it’s not permissible.
Okay.
The aṣl is what?
It’s not permissible.
It’s not permissible.
Every issue where we give a general ruling—there are exceptions.
Okay.
And you can never use those exceptions to dismiss or dismantle the foundation we agreed on.
I’ll give you an example.
Is drinking alcohol ḥarām?
Yes.
What about if a person is in a situation where they have to drink alcohol—out of necessity?
It becomes a necessity.
What if I use that argument and say that khamr is now generally permissible in such cases—so let’s make it a general ruling.
It’s not permissible.
Exactly.
So when we use the books of innovators in situations where the scholars have permitted it—because the book itself, even though its author is an innovator, doesn’t contain innovation—it’s not a problem for people to study from it.
Because the truth, remember, is the lost property of the believer.
So you're saying: Take the good and leave the bad?
Yes, but when we say "take the good and leave the bad," we’re assuming the person can determine what is good from what is bad.
Yeah, agreed. Otherwise you can’t.
Exactly. Otherwise, you might fall into the bad.
Okay, I agree.
So if you say to me that a student of knowledge who's now starting to seek knowledge, he can take the good from an innovator and, you know, leave off the bad that is with him. Then I would say, is he a student or is he the teacher? How does he know what is good from what is bad?
OK, I agree with you. And it goes against the concept of a student towards his teacher anyways. Why would you seek knowledge from somebody who you believe is misguided in the first place?
I say the same thing about Al-Warraqat. That's the point. You're not taking Al-Warraqat because of the author who wrote it. You're taking Al-Warraqat because the people of the Sunnah told you to read it.
OK.
But here you're sitting under a person of innovation. No one's told you. No, you can't determine what is right from what is wrong. You're a student of knowledge. I think this is qiyāsun maʿ al-fāriq. You're using two different situations and you're trying to give the same ruling towards it.
OK, I agree with you that obviously, if you're not knowledgeable enough to determine what is good and what is bad, then you can't do that because you might fall into the bad. Plus, why would you even want to? You've got many people who teach a subject anyway. You can study Arabic from somebody else or you can study...
That opens up a door to another issue. Al-Warraqat, for example, is a kitāb in uṣūl al-fiqh. Why are we still relying on quote-unquote innovators in sciences that are so important like uṣūl al-fiqh? Have we not got anyone from Ahl al-Sunnah to learn this from?
But I'm not going to be taking the book itself. I'm taking the shurūḥ and explanation of the people of the Sunnah. But I think the point I really want to draw here is that, you know, a book that a scholar or a person of innovation wrote, and that book itself has been told by people of Sunnah — they said this book, we've looked at it, we've verified it, we checked it — even though the author is wrong, you can study it. And these are the points that we've underlined.
Then comparing that to going to the door of Khālid or Zayd or Bakr min al-nās from the people who no one's told you who he is. You just sat with him and you take knowledge from him and you're a beginner. And so you're saying, I know he's got innovation, but I'm only going to what? Take the good and leave the evil. But then that's the question.
Should you even sit with somebody who you're questioning his ʿaqīdah? You're questioning your own teacher. Should you question your teacher in the first place? Well, isn't that bad manners? Isn't that — the poet did say:
إِذَا الفَتَى لَمْ يَرَ لِلمُعَلِّمِ فَضْلَهُ فِيهِ وَكُلُّ مَا لَمْ يَعْتَقِدْ لَمْ يَنْتَفِعْ
If you don't believe in your teacher and you don't have faith in him, to be very honest, you don't benefit from him. It's when you lack faith in your teacher, that's when you tend to not benefit from him the way you should.
Therefore, the same can be said about the Arabic language. It's just the language. We could go to a non-Muslim university and learn Arabic as a language. Therefore, what's the harm in taking it from him?
See, this is the difference. Taking knowledge from the disbeliever and taking knowledge from the innovator. Again, it's a different situation. The disbeliever, I'm not taking a religious concept from him.
You might be taking atheism from him.
Well, I'm not allowed to then study from him.
You're not allowed to?
No, of course. Every disbeliever comes with baggage — Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, something.
Yeah.
I cannot study from a person who's teaching me corruption in my belief — even a language.
He's not teaching you your belief. He's teaching you a language.
And he's bringing doubts to me.
No, not necessarily. He's just teaching you a language.
So Arabic, for example, can we learn Arabic from an innovator? You see, you're asking me a specific situation for a general ruling.
OK.
I would say to you, no, that's not allowed.
As a general ruling?
Yeah, but there could be a particular person, I might say to them, you can go study there.
Why is it not allowed? We're just learning a language.
It doesn't stay as a language because the person is a Muslim.
Yes.
A person who's a Muslim is closer to you than a non-Muslim.
OK.
So you kind of... he will push you. He will give you that feeling. He's a Muslim brother of yours, that has salāms, you give him salāms. Second thing is, I mentioned the statement of Imām al-Shawkānī رحمه الله, where it weakens the heart. It weakens the what? The heart to his statements.
So when he brings an Arabic example and he brings the āyah: الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَىٰ Let's say, the word istawā means it's stolen, and he throws it in. And you're just a young, basic Arabic learner — or he tells you that the kalām: إن الكلام ما في الفؤاد وإنما جُعل اللسان لما في الفؤاد دليلاً That speech doesn't come out. It's what's inside you. Kalāmun nafsī. And you just take that in. You take it in.
Even al-Waraqat, a person shouldn't study al-Waraqat by themselves. They should be taught al-Waraqat by a person of the Sunnah who will correct the book and tell you what's right from what is wrong in it. I don't think anybody would go and open al-Waraqat by themselves and understand what's being said there.
So are you really studying al-Waraqat or are you studying from a person of the Sunnah?
OK, understood.
Do you think your stance is a little harsh? And especially what I mean by that is applying it in the modern-day world. According to you, you shouldn't take knowledge from an innovator. You shouldn't even sit with an innovator. Some of my family members, potentially, as an example — mathalan — may be classified according to you as an innovator. I can't sit with them?
وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا مَعْرُوفًا — I befriend them in the worldly issues that you need to deal with them. They have rights as relatives. قَرَابَةٌ لَا شَكَّ — Family members, they have rights on you even if they're the worst of the worst. They have rights on you in the sense that qarāba doesn’t go away. But they lose the religious connection with you.
The minute you see a person from the other side of the world, for example Africa, who is holding on to the Sunnah, he's more closer to you than your misguided family member — for instance, your brother who's misguided.
That doesn't mean that you cut the ties of kinship. See, we can't dismiss one evidence for the other. Allah says: فَهَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ إِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ أَن تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَتُقَطِّعُوا أَرْحَامَكُمْ You can't cut the ties of kinship with your family.
The disbeliever that Allah says about: وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَىٰ أَن تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا مَعْرُوفًا — Befriend them in good. Even if they’re telling you to go against Allah’s religion, befriend them in good. In other words, whatever good is there, befriend them in that. Whenever there isn’t anything to befriend them with, just leave them.
So that’s my answer. But it doesn’t dismiss the concept or the consensus that I brought to you — that the Salaf brought — to stay away from innovators. So if your brother, for example, is preaching innovation to you, you don’t say, “He’s my brother, I have to sit with him.” No — you walk away from him. You don’t sit with him. But tomorrow, you go to him, greet him, ask how his children are doing, then you leave him again.
How far do we take this? For example, you have someone who is openly upon the Sunnah but they might do conferences with people who are questionable — do we boycott him? Is he now a person of innovation?
If a person is clinging to the Sunnah, warns against innovation, is known for his uprightness and being steadfast — in accordance with what the pious predecessors were upon — we may differ on an individual. We might differ on whether certain principles apply to a person or not. I might say, “Bakr is a mubtadiʿ, ḍāl, muḍill — a misguided person.” And you might say, “Well, I don’t see that applying to him. You’ve misunderstood. Maybe you have a personal issue with him.” Just because we differ on the application of these texts on this particular person doesn’t mean we differ on the principles.
That’s happened in the time of the Salaf. They differed on individuals. You find that Imām al-Shāfiʿī praised someone while Imām Aḥmad criticised him.
So the general principle for someone who’s upon the Sunnah but does conferences with people who are questionable is — no, he shouldn’t do that. He shouldn’t. But he might not agree with you that those people are innovators in the first place.
Clarify that for me.
You’re saying that a person shouldn’t work with innovators — correct?
Correct.
So if me and you both agree that this person is an innovator and then you go and work with him — now that’s a problem. But if you say, “I don’t believe this person is an innovator,” then OK.
I do believe that if a person says this and this, he’s an innovator. But I don’t believe this person has said that. You might say, “I believe he did.”
Exactly. So there could be a situation where someone does a conference with a person — and he doesn’t believe that person is an innovator, but you do. And therefore, you think: we don’t differ on the principle, just the application.
Yes. For example, we both agree that you can’t go against an oppressive ruler unless he becomes a disbeliever — we agree on that. But there’s someone he’s doing a conference with who believes you can go against an oppressive leader. I say to him, “Don’t go to that person — this is what he believes.” He replies, “I don’t believe he believes that.”
Your issue is not with the principle — you both agree the principle is wrong. You differ on whether that individual holds that view. This has happened in Islamic history. The Salaf differed on individuals.
I can give you many examples. Yahyā ibn Maʿīn criticised Imām al-Shāfiʿī. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal didn’t accept that from him. Imām al-Bukhārī was criticised by Yaḥyā al-Duhalī — and no one accepted that criticism. People have misapplied certain rulings on certain individuals — that has happened. There's no denying it.
But if we start discussing the aṣl itself — for example, whether going against a non-kāfir oppressive ruler is allowed — and you believe it is, now I have a problem with you. Because your belief is wrong.
OK, fine. So if there's a masjid, for example, that is clearly upon innovation — and we agree they are upon innovation — then I can't cooperate with them.
We shouldn’t cooperate with them. We shouldn’t do daʿwah with them.
Oh, you should definitely give daʿwah to every and any person.
That’s what Yahya mentions. But not a joint conference where we’re together, sitting side by side. No — you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t do that. You shouldn’t engage with them in that way.
But there are times — I told you — situations may arise. I want this to be put in correct context.
Ok.
There may arise maṣāliḥ ʿāmmah for the Muslims — a great benefit for the Muslims.
For example, Muslims are losing their masjids, and this is causing a problem in the Muslim community. So they come together and voice their opinion as a joint force to repel this harm and push it away from themselves.
This, lā shakka, can fall under: وَتَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْبِرِّ وَالتَّقْوَى وَلَا تَعَاوَنُوا عَلَى الْإِثْمِ وَالْعُدْوَانِ — Cooperate upon righteousness and piety, not upon sin and transgression.
But you, as an individual, do not believe the Deobandis and Barelwis are guided. You believe they are misguided. They're upon innovation. They are from the 72 sects in Hellfire. That’s your belief. هَذِهِ عَقِيدَتُكَ — That’s your creed.
But I’m working with them right now because of the ḥaqq. I'm trying to spread the truth. The ḥaqq is what’s going to prosper here. I'm not doing it for this person — I’m trying to repel a harm that should be removed.
That is sharʿī. The Prophet ﷺ did that. He worked with non-Muslims — he did it with Quraysh. He signed a treaty with them. Ibn al-Qayyim — and I don’t think anyone should question his knowledge — said that and derived from that.
But when someone is not calling to the Sunnah, not calling to tawḥīd, not preaching the ḥaqq, and only speaks about generic issues — and I see him at every conference, with Deobandis, with Barelwis, and he says, "We have to look at the unity of the Muslims" — now I question you.
What are you about? What are you actually talking about? Because I don’t see in your message daʿwat al-anbiyāʾ wa al-rusul — the call of the Prophets and Messengers.
We don’t even know if he's giving daʿwah to those people. That still doesn’t change the fact that his message itself is not the message of Islam in the way the Prophet ﷺ did. It all comes back to the message.
Before we talk about who you're associating with, the focus is your message. Your daʿwah is not aligned with that of the Prophet ﷺ.
Let’s take the example of Prophet Yusuf عليه السلام. He was in prison. The prisoners came to him with dreams, asking for interpretation. He did not respond immediately. He first said: يَا صَاحِبَيِ السِّجْنِ أَأَرْبَابٌ مُّتَفَرِّقُونَ خَيْرٌ أَمِ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْوَاحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ He spoke straight away — before answering their question, he gave them tawḥīd. That was the first thing.
I still feel like you're holding a very harsh, rigid view. According to your perspective, we can’t differ on anything in the religion. It’s like we have to be robotic and agree on every single thing.
No, no, definitely not. That’s not the case.
Allah, tabāraka wa taʿālā, said in the Qur’an: وَلَا يَزَالُونَ مُخْتَلِفِينَ إِلَّا مَن رَّحِمَ رَبُّكَ People are going to differ.
Differences exist. You and I — black and white, different backgrounds — there’s always going to be differences. Allah also says: وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ — The difference of your tongues and your colors.
Differences are there. But not every difference is madhmūm — blameworthy.
So what are the permissible types of differences?
Beautiful question. Now we’re getting somewhere.
Permissible difference is that which:
- Does not go against clear textual evidence.
- Is not something newly invented or unheard of.
- Was known and found in the time of the Salaf.
If you're taking an opinion, and in the time of the Salaf there were two or three views on that issue — and you chose one of those views — then that is a valid difference. It’s called khilāf, and more precisely, ijtihād — with possible ṣawāb (correctness).
It means it’s permissible. It’s acceptable. One of us is wrong and one of us is right — we just don’t know which. Each one is going to say, “I think I’m right,” but it gives us room to still love each other and respect one another.
Take the example of Ibn Masʿūd and Ibn ʿAbbās — they differed in the interpretation of the verse: أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ
The ayah:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ...
Lamastum, what does it mean in this ayah?
Ibn Mas'ud and Ibn Abbas had two different tafsir.
Ibn Mas'ud said here, lamas means touching a woman.
Ibn Abbas said it means sexual intercourse.
So that means that the woman, if you touch a woman, she'll break your wudoo, according to Ibn Mas'ud's interpretation.
And according to Ibn Abbas, no it doesn't. Only it has to be sexual intercourse with a woman.
Now, somebody takes the view of Ibn Mas'ud, and someone takes the view of Ibn Abbas.
Of course, I'm of the view of Ibn Abbas, and that's the view I'm going to push, and that's the view I'm going to, you know—
But on the other hand, I won't say that the person who takes the view of Ibn Mas'ud is misguided, is corrupted, he should be boycotted for that belief.
No, that's a khilaf, that's an ijtihadi khilaf, it's a difference of opinion which is valid.
And it's present at the time of the Salaf.
And the madhhab of Ibn Mas'ud, this is what they took.
This is acceptable.
The other issue is for example: Do you put your knees down or do you put your hands down first when you're going towards the sujood?
That's another difference of opinion which is valid.
But we can't differ upon whether khamr is halal or haram.
Yeah, I see. Because that difference hasn't occurred before us.
Exactly.
Okay, but at the same time, with your kind of view — and particularly when it comes to dealing with innovators — don't you feel like you're restricting yourself to maybe three or four shuyukh in the world? And you're being fanatical towards them? Whoever they declare to be an innovator, you're with them.
No, that's not the case. And there are people who are like that, I agree.
But I'm definitely not like that.
I actually believe that ulama of the Sunnah are all over the world. Some who I know and some I don't know.
And the ones that I know, I hope, are more than the ones I know.
And I actually believe that if a person bases his love and his hate, his allegiance, on individuals, then that person is actually an innovator himself.
And I'm going to read the statement of Al-Imam Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
فَمَنْ جَعَلَ شَخْصًا مِنَ الْأَصْخَاصِ Anyone who takes a particular person,
غَيْرَ رَسُولِ اللهِ Other than the Messenger ﷺ,
مَنْ أَحَبَّهُ Anyone who loves that person,
وَوَافَقُهُ And agrees with that person,
كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ He says, "Oh yeah, he's from Ahl al-Sunnah."
Why? Because he agrees with my sheikh.
Anyone who does that, and says: "You're Ahl al-Sunnah because you agreed with our sheikh, you agreed with our imam" — anyone who does that, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:
وَمَنْ خَالَفَ وَكَانَ مِنْهَا الْبِدْعَةِ وَالْفُرْقَةِ And anyone who opposes that sheikh — you say he's an innovator because he opposes the sheikh.
كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ وَالضَّلَالِ وَالْفُرْقَةِ That you're an innovator. You're causing disunity to the Ummah because you went against our imam.
كَمَا يُوجَدُ ذَلِكَ فِي الطَّوَائِفِ As this is present in some deviated groups in the religion.
وَغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ And other than that.
كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ وَالضَّلَالِ وَالتَّفَرُّقِ You are from the innovators now. You are misguided.
Of course they are.
Anyone who bases love and hate on other than the Messenger ﷺ, and that which the Ummah have unanimously agreed upon, anyone who bases love and hate on other than the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and that which the Ummah have united upon — then he is from:
مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ وَالضَّلَالِ وَالفُرْقَةِ Okay.
وَالتَّفَرُّقِ He is a person of the—
Whether he screams "I'm from the people of the Sunnah," and "I am from the imams of the Sunnah," and "I'm upon Salafiyyah," and "I'm this and that" — he can give himself those fancy names—
He is an innovator himself.
He is misguided himself.
And he is from أهل الفرقة — those أهل التفرق.
So that's something I really want people to understand.
There are scholars of the Sunnah in India.
There are scholars of the Sunnah in Europe.
There are scholars of the Sunnah in America.
Europe — all of it — I don't know.
I cannot eliminate everything. There could be scholars of the Sunnah in America.
There could be scholars in China.
There could be scholars in Australia.
There could be scholars of the Sunnah in — what do you call it — Africa.
I can't speak.
And just because I don't know something — as the ulama they say:
Just because you're ignorant of something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You're ignorant of something — doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
So I'm saying that, alhamdulillah, the people of the Sunnah are a lot.
They don't have to sign up.
They don't have to call a particular person.
They don't have to sign a letter of agreement.
All that they need to come with is: they have to follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah. And every interpretation they give for the Qur’an and the Sunnah has to be based on what the Sahaba said. Okay? That’s all it is.
Even if you don’t call yourself, for example, Salafi — you don’t have to call yourself Salafi. Wallahi, you don’t have to call yourself Salafi. No, you don’t have to call yourself Ahlus Sunnah if you want to.
Rather, if you call yourself Salafi and you don’t follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah and that which the pious predecessors are upon, and you give yourself a Salafi — you’re not Salafi. The name doesn’t change anything.
The scholars, they say: لا عبرة بالألفاظ والمباني “There is no reality to wordings and terms.” إنما العبرة بالمعاني “That which we look at is the meaning.”
We look at your actions. We look at how you follow the Salaf — and your actions.
There are a group of people who say “I’m Salafi” right now. And they shout that “We’re Salafi!” But for them, the reality and the truth is: They have love, and they have hate, and they have allegiance on a particular person — or two or three shuyukh.
وهذا حق لا مرية فيه There’s no debate about that. That’s the truth. That’s the reality.
You know what you can do? You can oppose, if you want to, the Salaf. You can oppose the Salaf if you want to. But if you agree with their shaykh — you’re from Ahl al-Sunnah. You’re from Firqat al-Najiyah. And you’re Salafi.
That’s the reality of some group of people out there.
This shaykh is also one of your shuyukh. I mean, I respect the shuyukh of Ahl al-Sunnah in general. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything a person says. I don’t believe every single thing a shaykh says — that he’s Haqq and he is... I don’t believe that.
I believe: يُؤْخَذُ مِن قَوْلِهُ وَيُرَدُّ I take some of his speech when it goes in accordance with the Kitab and the Sunnah, and I reject it when it goes against the Kitab and the Sunnah.
I am not fanatic over any individual.
Okay. JazakAllahu khair.
And Ustadh Fakhman, I’ve got one more really important question for you, and I’m going to end with this bit, bismillah al-Kareem. And that is:
What if you are a layman Muslim? You’re not knowledgeable. You find someone in the masjid giving duroos, giving lectures, giving lessons. And you see them reading the Qur’an, praying at night. You see them doing all of these good deeds. He’s got beautiful akhlaaq, good manners. And he’s calling people to what appears to you, as a layman Muslim, to the right version of Islam.
How can you determine whether your initial perception of them being upon the Sunnah is correct or not? What kind of steps can you take? What kind of guidelines can you use?
You see, the layman person who doesn’t know — generally we can’t hold him to account, because he’s ignorant, right? He doesn’t know.
And ignorance is a ʿudhr sharʿi. Ignorance, generally speaking, is a sharʿi excuse — you are excused in the Shariʿah. Ignorance is an excuse.
As Allah said — even from tawheed... You see, that needs tafsil, whether you can be ignorant in tawheed. Okay, that’s another topic for another day.
So Allah Taʿala says in the Qur’an: وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا “We are not ones to punish them unless We send a messenger.” Meaning: to convey to them.
Allah says in another ayah: وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ إِذْ قَالُوا مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ بَشَرٍ مِنْ شَيْءٍ And Allah says in another ayah: اللَّهُ يَصْطَفِي مِنَ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا وَمِنَ النَّاسِ
Allah sends messengers for a reason — to convey the message of Islam, and to debunk and to speak against and dismantle the confusion and the misinterpretation of religion.
So ignorance is a hukm. It’s a real excuse, generally, yes.
But here — if a person goes to a person who they rely on, and they believe in... ʿAmmat al-Nas — the general people — and they believe in that person.
Then as a poet said: وَلَيْسَ فِي فَتْوَاهُ مُفْتٍ مُتَّبَعٍ مَا لَمْ يُضِفْ لِلدِّينِ الْعِلْمَ وَالْوَرَعِ The person — he is... He goes to a person he sees religion in. He sees a person who’s, you know, staying away from haram. He sees a person who he believes is acting upon the religion. That’s all he saw. And he asks a question.
I mean, Allah isn’t going to punish him for that.
But what is needed to know is — and this is an advice to all of the people out there who are seeking knowledge, who want to learn: It’s generally good to go to a person of the Sunnah and you ask them about who you should take knowledge from.
So you can test them. Ask them. You don’t test the person that you’re trying to take knowledge from — but you just ask about him from other people.
Just like a sister — if she wanted to get married, she asks about the brother.
But as a layman — like, how can you determine whether the answer you get is a good answer or not? I mean, you hear from the imams of your local masjid — all of them are criticizing him. They all say that he’s misguided.
Okay, okay. I mean, I want to mention a final story. And I think this — in sha’ Allah Ta’ala — it should, in sha’ Allah Ta’ala, bring matters to more clarity. And I think it’s important that we mention it.
Imam Ahmad, rahimahullah Ta’ala — I took a story from Tabaqat al-Hanabilah by Abu Ya’la. He mentioned that Imam Ahmad said to ʿAli ibn Abi Khalid — He said about al-Harith al-Muhasibi: لا تجالسوه — don’t sit with him. ولا تكلموه — don’t talk to him.
So this is what Imam Ahmad said to him. He said: don’t sit with that man. And don’t even talk to him.
Talking about an innovator — a man who went against— I want to show you something, okay.
And then Imam Ahmad also said to the neighbor and a man who’s close to ʿAli ibn Abi Khalid the same thing. And he argued with Imam Ahmad more than ʿAli ibn Abi Khalid.
He argued with him regarding the issue of al-Harith. He said: ذاك لا يعرف إلا من خبره عرفه That man — only those who know him truly can recognize him.
ذاك جالسه المغازلي ويعقوب وفلان فأخرجهم إلى رأي جهم، هلكوا بسببه Ahmad said: this man that you’re asking me about — al-Harith — many people have sat with him, and he’s taken them away from the Sunnah. He’s thrown them into misguidance. He corrupted their belief.
So the man said to him: يا أبا عبد الله — this is what concerns me. He said to Ahmad: يروي الحديث — the man is narrating hadith. ساكن، خاشع — the man is tranquil. The man has humility when he talks.
Just like the people I’m telling you about — who are caught reading the Qur’an and doing good deeds. He said: يروي الحديث — he narrates hadith. ساكن، خاشع — this man has khushuʿ in his prayer. He’s calm and he’s collected. He is the son of ʿulama. He is like a scholar. ومن قصتي — he went on explaining who this man is.
فغضب أبو عبد الله — Ahmad got angry. وجعل يقول — he said: لا يغرك — don’t let it deceive you — خشوعه — this man’s khushuʿ, ولينه — and how gentle he is. لا تغتر بتنكيس رأسه — don’t let him looking down like this and humbling himself, don’t let that fool you. فإنه رجل سوء — this man is an evil man. ذاك لا يعرف إلا من قد خبره — no one knows this man except the person who saw him for what he really is. لا تكلّم، ولا كرامة — don’t talk to this man. ولا كرامة له — this man has no honor.
There’s no good in him.
كل من حدث بحديث رسول الله ﷺ Everyone who tells you the hadith of the Prophet ﷺ — وكان مبتدعاً — and he’s an innovator — تجلس إليه؟ — you’re going to sit with him? Every person who tells you a hadith of the Prophet ﷺ and he’s an innovator, you’re going to go and you’re going to take hadith from him? لا — Ahmad said: no. ولا كرامة — this man has no honor. ولا نعم عين — not at all.
وجعل يقول: ذاك، ذاك — and Ahmad kept going on and he was angry.
So just because you saw a man praying, and fasting, and crying in the salah, and whenever he mentions a hadith he can’t hold himself — that doesn’t make it a criteria to go forward for marrying him or taking knowledge from him.
And to be very frank and honest with you — a sister wouldn’t just take that as well for marriage.
And that’s what really shocks me. That if I told you: “He’s dangerous, stay away from him,” — you would take it and you’d be very—
But when it comes to: “This person is an innovator, this person is going to corrupt your religion,” you are what? You’re like: Nah...
And what is most important for you? Your raʾs al-māl is your dīn — your religion.
Raʾs al-māl meaning? Meaning your capital. You can’t lose the capital, right, in a business?
No. You go bust.
Yeah. So you’re losing your dīn, and you’re talking about other things.
It’s sad nowadays that people will really be careless about whether a person is an innovator or not.
To the extent — I’ll tell you something — There are people who now don’t even like using the word bidʿah. Hate using that word — bidʿah. They hate using the word Sunnah. They hate using the word Tawheed. They’ve run away from it so much.
And there will come a time — they don’t want to even use the word Allah.
Ustadh, I think we’re going to leave it there. JazakAllahu khairan for joining me on The Hot Seat. JazakAllahu khairan.
May Allah bless you. And may Allah bless you too.
I ask Allah for forgiveness and I repent to Him. And I ask Allah for forgiveness and I repent to Him.
On the show, you can also ask questions on the website to the speaker himself about these contemporary modern-day issues.
Until next time — Fi amanillah, wa assalamu ʿalaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
