The Intersection of Faith and Modernity: Insights from Ustadh Abdulrahman Hassan

Our 2020 Review The Hot Seat by 2

0:00

/13021.464

1×

Note: The following transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies.

Alhamdulillah Rabbil Alameen.

Assalatu wassalamu ala rasoolillahi sallallahu alaihi wasallam wa ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een. Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh Ustad Abdul Rahman Hassan. Wa alaikumussalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

How are you doing today? I'm good alhamdulillah barakallahu fihi. So I wanted to do something a little bit different to what we normally do on The Hot Seat today. Inshallah.

This is our last episode of the year 2020. And for those that don't know, The Hot Seat podcast has actually been around for quite a long time. It's something we started in 2019.

I've not just had yourself on the podcast, but I've also had other guests like Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Hanbal. And anybody who might have come across this podcast in the last few months or so, I encourage them to go to our channel, look on the playlist section and they can find the entire 20 or 21 episodes that we've done so far. Having said that, there's no doubt in 2020, since we relaunched The Hot Seat, it's gone up a notch and now episodes become longer, they become a little bit more detailed, we've got a new set.

And one thing I wanted to do today is kind of review the episodes we've done so far this year. There's nine episodes in total, and I want to go through them and really just talk a little bit about what we spoke about on episode. I'd really like to get an insight, I think for a lot of students of knowledge out there who might be watching this, they'd really like to know what kind of books you read in preparation for each of these episodes.

And then one thing I've done is gone through the comments on each episode, and I've gathered maybe two to three, maybe four questions from the viewers on each episode. And I think it'd be nice to answer them in this session, inshallah. So the first episode we started with was an issue that dealt with homosexuality, the LGBTQ movement, and how we as Muslims should navigate around that movement.

And this was actually an episode that was released on YouTube, but Qadar Allah wa Ma Sha' Al Fa'al YouTube have actually taken it down, which of course, they have the right to do that, it's their platform. If anybody wants to listen to the episode, it is still available on the iTunes podcast app as well as Spotify. But I think it'd be good to, at the start, just to give a reminder to the viewers who did get to watch the episode, what we spoke about.

Our religion of Islam, there's a concept known as the fitrah, the natural disposition, the way that Allah Ta'ala created a particular person, or the way Allah created all mankind. The fitrah, its usage is a lot in the religion, and it has many different definitions, many different meanings. But from one of its definitions is the way Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala created this person, and things that he has placed inside this person, to know what is right from what is wrong, inclinations to things.

And if you look at the Quranic discourse, you find that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala made what is known as a male and a female, there's a purpose and a wisdom behind it. There's other issues that Islam talks about when it comes to the concept of sexuality, and that is the concept of having sexual intercourse with a woman that you're not married to, deliberately having sexual intercourse with her. And this is called zina in Islam.

Also, Islam has a very strong position regarding that. Allah Ta'ala says in the Quran, وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْزِنَاءُ Do not come close to zina. إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا Do not come close to zina.

For verily, it's an evil act. Okay, so what should a Muslim man do if he's having homosexual thoughts? Is he expected to completely rewire his feelings of attraction? Me and you both agreed earlier that it's impossible for us to even imagine being homosexual for a day. Or is he meant to just leave marriage and attraction altogether? And we obviously know marriage is a big part of the Sunnah.

It almost feels like he's got no way out. One of the ways that a person can work on is the concept of patience and self-restraint, restraining yourself, resilience, having control over yourself, disciplining yourself. The Prophet ﷺ said in a hadith, Bukhari and Muslim both narrated, if a person comes with chast, Allah will help them with the remaining.

Anyone who comes with patience, Allah Ta'ala will help them and give them the patience that they need. And that hadith mentioned there's nothing given to a person better than patience. Also Allah Ta'ala told us in the Quran, anyone who strives in the cause of Allah, they fight to follow the commandments of Allah Ta'ala and stay away from the prohibitions.

You fight. Allah says we will guide them to that which is good for them. And Allah is with those who are righteous and noble.

What is your position on working with a gay rights movement, an LGBTQ community to uplift that oppression? Would you do it? I wouldn't work with them because I find that we're very like working with them in details back and forth and I wouldn't work with them to be honest and I don't think any Muslim should. But what I do believe is if anyone's oppressed and a situation arises and I'd have to take a position where I would have to come with so many different communities in order to get that rights brought back to its place, I would do it. And if the only community that was supporting it was the LGBTQ community, only them supporting it? Whoever is doing it.

I said by the way LGBTQ community is not worse than disbelievers. I said I'll stand with the disbelievers in order to bring that rights back. But that thing that I'm bringing back has to be something which is shara'an, legislated.

So as you can see, we really dealt with the issue from two different perspectives. We looked at what is the ruling of homosexuality in Islam? And then how do we navigate through this whole political movement known as the LGBTQ movement? And are we allowed to engage with them or not? What were kind of your thoughts during that episode? Alhamdulillah Rabbil Alameen, Lahu Alhamdul Hassan Wal Thana'u Al Jameel, Wa Shadu An La Ilaha Illa Allah Wahdahu La Sharika Lah, Yaqulu Al Haqqa Wahuwa Yahdi Al Sabeel, Wa Shadu Anna Muhammadan Abduhu Wa Rasuluh, Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Ala Alihi Wa Ashabihi Wattabi'ina Lahum Bi Ihsani Ila Yawmi Al Deen Amma Ba'd. What I try to inshallah advise myself and also want to advise the people watching and listening is the importance of seeing the Quran and the Sunnah as your main source where you take your religion from.

It's important that whether you speak the Arabic language or not, whether you're a beginner student of knowledge or not, you always have to know in your heart that the Quran and the Sunnah is where we take halal and haram from. If we want to say this is halal, we take it from the Quran. If we want to say something is haram, we take it from the Quran.

Allah Ta'ala says in the Quran, Wa Ala Allahi Qaslu Al Sabeel. And the legislation is for Allah Ta'ala. Ini Al Hukumu Illa Lillah.

The legislation to say this is halal and this is haram, to sanction things are for Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala. Humans don't choose. Humans don't have the rights to say this is halal based on their own whims and desires.

But Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala has the rights. He's the one who created. He's the one who brought us into this world.

He has the rights to make things halal and he has the rights to make things haram. And the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is one who conveys to us that which Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala sanctioned. We have to follow both of them.

Allah Azawajal and his messenger. Allah says in the Quran, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, Wa Ma Kana Li Mu'minin Wala Mu'minatin Itha Qadallahu Wa Rasoolu Amra An Yakuna Lahumul Kheeratu Min Amrihim. If Allah and his messenger pass a ruling in a matter, we have no choice to be honest.

We have to submit and listen. And in this ayah Allah says, if Allah and his messenger, and both of them we have to take, Wa Ma Kana Li Mu'minin Wala Mu'minatin Itha Qadallahu Wa Rasooluhu Amra. Allah and his messenger pass a ruling in a matter we have to submit.

Also Allah says in another ayah, Fala Wa Rabbika La Yu'minuna Hatta Yuhakimuka Fima Shajara Bainahum Thumma La Yajidu Fi Anfusim Harajan Mimma Qadaitu Wa Yusallimu Tasleema. What is upon you is when you see these textual evidences come to you from the Qur'an and Sunnah, and of course they are authentic from the Qur'an and they're also authentic from the Sunnah of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam is that you surrender to it. You give into it.

And you are pleased with what Allah Ta'ala judged. Sometimes you will understand the wisdom behind things, and sometimes you may not understand the wisdom behind things. But the point that's required from you as a slave is to surrender.

It is to adhere to the commandments of your Lord Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la and come with the real meaning, the real reality of servitude. There's a master who's Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la and you are nothing but a slave, and that you truly honor that station. Allah Ta'ala spoke about Nabiullah Muhammad at times when he was at his best moments.

Allah will refer to him as a slave. Allah says He is Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la Allah will refer to him as a slave. When Allah Ta'ala spoke about the Qur'an coming down on the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, he said When Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la spoke about the Prophet standing up to give da'wah, he said Allah didn't use any other word except abd.

It's something that nowadays many people have this negative connotation of the word slave and without doubt outside of Islam it might take that negative connotation for many people. But certainly when you look at being a slave of Allah, this is not something negative, this is something honorable. Very honorable and the sign of a slave is that the master says something and you just say I hear You don't question him, you trust him, you believe him and that is if I wanted to achieve anything in this podcast that I did was to say to the people, my beloved brothers and sisters around the world the Qur'an and the Sunnah are what we have to adhere to.

We have to be slaves to Allah and His commandments and surrender to them and give in to them. We also have every solution, every issue we have the solution is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It's there right in front of us.

We just have to learn how to take it out of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Al-'allama Muhammad al-Ameen al-Shankhati used to say مَنْ أَرَادَ الْجُنْيَةَ فَلَيَ تَعَلِّمْ الْقُرْآنَ Anyone who wants the dunya, let him learn the Qur'an. وَمَنْ أَرَادَ الْآخِرَةَ فَلَيَ تَعَلِّمْ الْقُرْآنَ And anyone who wants the hereafter, let him learn the Qur'an.

And if you want the hereafter, وَمَنْ أَرَادَهُ مَا فَلَيَ تَعَلِّمْ الْقُرْآنَ And if you want both of them together, then learn the Qur'an. And of course the Sunnah is there. It's a revelation from Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala.

Yeah, I think that's a great introduction. And I think those points really hold true for not just the podcast we did on homosexuality, but for all of the podcasts that we've done. And we do want to tackle these difficult contemporary issues that many people might shy away from.

And it's no doubt an issue that has been more prevalent in the last 20 or 30 years The issue of LGBTQ being on the rise. People in the West are really struggling with this one. They're not sure what to do with their kids even being in schools.

So I think that was a really comprehensive podcast where we dealt with a number of different things. What kind of books did you read in preparation for that episode? In general, all of the topics, there are like common books I use. Maybe some topics I might use other books and I may not use it in this particular topic.

But generally what I do is, I first of all go to the Qur'an. And I see that to be very important for me because, again as I mentioned, the Qur'an is the source of legislation for every single Muslim who believes in Allah on the Day of Judgment. So I always go to the Qur'an first.

And when I look at the Qur'an I always look at the Qur'an based on the exegesis. Which is the explanation, the commentary that the great scholars of Islam have put on it. The Tafsir.

The Tafsir book. So I go to definitely first of all Tafsir Al-Mujarir or Tafsir Al-Mujarir sorry first. Al-Mujarir Al-Tabari's Tafsir is considered to be from the Tafsir Al-Ma'thoor which is that, his Tafsir will benefit from the quote of the early Salaf, the pious predecessors.

The ones that the Prophet ﷺ had told us. That the best generation are my generation and those to come after and those to come after. So Al-Mujarir Al-Tabari, what he would do is he would bring an ayah and he would give you the Tafsir of the Sahabah, the Tabi'in and Atba'u Tabi'in.

And I really love to know their commentary first before anybody else. And a lot of the times Al-Mujarir Al-Tabari when he brings the Tafsir an Israeli happens that the Tafsir is Tafsir Al-Tadad because the Tafsir is two types. There is Tafsir which is Al-Tanaw'u and Tafsir Al-Tadad.

Tafsir Al-Tanaw'u means they are all saying different wordings but really you can reconcile between their views. Qatad is saying something, Mujahid is saying something, Ikrimah is saying something, Hassan Al-Basri is saying something, Qatad is saying something but when you look at it it's easy to reconcile between their views so it's not a big problem. For example they're just looking at an iPad or obviously we're looking at an iPad people describe it in different ways.

Someone might say this is an Apple product someone might say this is grey, someone might say this is big but they haven't contradicted each other in any way. It's true. So it's called Ikhtilaf Al-Tanaw'u and the second type is called Ikhtilaf Al-Tadad which is that the views are going against one another when he's saying something.

For example, Aulā Mastum al-Nisā’ (أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ), which we mentioned in some of the episodes—regarding the word Lams (لَمس)—the two views of Ibn ʿAbbās and Ibn Masʿūd contradict one another. Because of that, there’s going to be a khilāf (disagreement) in this matter. So a great mufassir (exegete) like Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī tries to reconcile between their views. I like how he does the tarjīḥ (weighing of views) and how he strengthens the preferred opinion.

So I always go to his Tafsīr: Tafsīr al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, the great mufassir. He's considered—or rather, they refer to him—as Imām al-Mufassirīn (the Imam of the exegetes). Imām al-Aʾimmah (Imam of the Imams) is a title given to Muḥammad ibn Khuzaymah, not al-Ṭabarī.

I also go to Tafsīr al-Baghawī, which is a very summarized book, but it's an important one. Tafsīr Ibn Abī Ḥātim, I refer to that as well. Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, al-Saʿdī—I also refer to those. Then there's Tafsīr Ameen al-Shanqīṭī. I really think it’s very important. I’ve quoted him quite a lot. His Tafsīr is unique—one of the most unique Tafsīrs out there.

He proves the concept that the scholars mention: كم ترك الأول للآخر – “How much the early generations have left behind for the later ones.” So you’d think to yourself: How many books of Tafsīr have been written—can someone really come after and still write a new Tafsīr book? But Muḥammad al-Amīn al-Shanqīṭī, may Allah have mercy on him, compiled this Tafsīr book recently, and it proves that writing Tafsīr is always going to continue. It’s one of the miracles of the Qur’an—Subḥānallāh (Glory be to Allah), it’s amazing what Allah has enabled.

What he does, Subḥānallāh, is so unique. Honestly, it’s one of the earliest books I go to when looking into the Tafsīr of an āyah. He speaks about it from the perspective of language, of fiqh, of balāghah, bayān, and badīʿ (linguistic eloquence and rhetorical devices). His book is called Aḍwā’ al-Bayān. He performs the best type of Tafsīr of the Qur’an, which is Tafsīr al-Qur’ān bil-Qur’ān—interpreting the Qur’an with the Qur’an. If he comes across an āyah, he explains it using another āyah, and the way he does that is so unique. So I really go back to it.

I also go to Kutub al-Qirā’āt (books of Qur’anic recitations) when it comes to the Qur’an. If I’m looking at an āyah that has different qirā’āt, especially if I see that Ibn Jarīr mentions it in his Tafsīr, or Ibn Kathīr, or Baghawī, or Ameen al-Shanqīṭī, I like to look it up and research further. So I go to al-Nashr fī al-Qirā’āt al-ʿAshr by Ibn al-Jazarī. I’ll also look at al-Ḥirz al-Amānī by al-Shāṭibī and its shurūḥ (commentaries).

Kutub al-Ḥadīth (Hadith books) would be the second area I go to. Generally speaking, I start with Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, because it's the most authentic book after the Book of Allah. The great Imām al-ʿIrāqī says:

وأول من ألّف في الصحيح محمد وخص بالتّرجِيح، ومسلم بعد وبعض الغرب مع أبي علي فضلوا ذا ونفع. “The first to author a book of authentic Hadith was Muhammad (al-Bukhārī), and he was favored and preferred. Muslim came after, and some of the scholars of the West along with Abū ʿAlī preferred him and found benefit in that.”

So I go to that book if a Hadith is mentioned or I need to find a Hadith. I go to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī first. I look at the bāb (chapter) that Bukhārī placed it under, and then I consult the explanation, starting with Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar.

Second, I refer to the Fatḥ al-Bārī of Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī. His work is indispensable. He brings you the aqwāl al-salaf (statements of the early generations) extensively. You won’t find this as much in Ibn Ḥajar’s commentary. Ibn Rajab sometimes explains a whole ḥadīth using only the views of the Salaf—just like Ibn Jarīr does with Qur’anic āyāt.

Interestingly, the name Fatḥ al-Bārī used by Ibn Ḥajar was actually taken from Ibn Rajab, who preceded him. Ibn Rajab passed away while writing Kitāb al-Janā’iz (the Book of Funerals); he didn’t complete the book.

There’s also a researcher who worked on Sharḥ al-Tirmidhī—Ḥammām Saʿīd—he mentions something like there are two different taḥqīqāt (critical editions).

The third book I generally go to is the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imām Mālik. I use the riwāyah (transmission) of Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā al-Laythī, because it is the latest and best-preserved version. I don’t go comparing all the different versions—I start with that one and I’m content with it. That’s the one that Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr used in his works: al-Tamhīd and al-Istidhkār.

There’s a difference between the two books. Many people don’t know this: al-Tamhīd focuses on ṣanʿah ḥadīthiyyah (Hadith methodology) and marfūʿāt (narrations attributed to the Prophet ﷺ). al-Istidhkār, on the other hand, focuses more on maqṭūʿāt (narrations of the companions and successors) and ṣanʿah fiqhiyyah (fiqh methodology). So if I want to research a fiqh issue, I go to al-Istidhkār, and if it’s more about the Hadith itself, I go to al-Tamhīd.

The taḥqīq of Bashshār ʿAwwād al-Maʿrūf is the best so far, though he has been critiqued for some manuscript errors he relied on.

I also look at other Kutub al-Ḥadīth, like Sharḥ al-Sunan by al-Imām al-Baghawī, al-Muntaqā by Ibn al-Jārūd, and Musnad Aḥmad, especially with Fatḥ al-Rabbānī. When using Hadith books, I generally prefer the Dār al-Tafsīr print; other prints are not as reliable.

I also refer to:

• Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah
• Sunan al-Dārimī
• Sunan al-Bayhaqī

These are very important to me. When I want to look up āthār (narrations) of the Companions, I refer to Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah. I compared the editions by Muḥammad ʿAwwāmah and Shaykh Saʿd al-Shathrī.

Ṭarḥ al-Tathrīb by al-ʿIrāqī—I think it’s powerful. Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn is very important to me, especially how Nawawī organized the chapters—where he placed things.

Sometimes if I can’t go to the larger Hadith collections like Sunan al-Bayhaqī or Sunan Abī Dāwūd, and their explanations, I just stick to Subul al-Salām by Amīr al-Ṣanʿānī, who explained Bulūgh al-Marām.

I also refer to Nayl al-Awṭār by al-Shawkānī, especially when I want to focus on the fiqh dimension.

For takhrīj (Hadith authentication), especially for Hadiths discussed in the podcast, I refer to:

• Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr by Ibn Ḥajar
• Tuhfat al-Muḥtāj by Ibn Walāqqīn
• Naṣb al-Rāyah by al-Zaylaʿī
• Natā’ij al-Afkār by Ibn Ḥajar
• Jāmiʿ al-Tālī by Ibn Kathīr
• al-Mawḍūʿāt by Ibn al-Jawzī
• al-Mutanāhiyah by Ibn al-Jawzī
• al-Badr al-Munīr—though I don’t use it much, since I suffice with Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr

For ʿIlm al-Rijāl (narrator science), I refer to:

• al-Mīzān wa al-Iʿtidāl by al-Dhahabī
• But I focus more on Lisān al-Mīzān by Ibn Ḥajar

I also use:

• Tahdhīb al-Kamāl by Abū al-Ḥajjāj al-Mizzī
• But my main focus is on Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb by Ibn Ḥajar, because I like his nukat (subtle observations) and taʿlīqāt (comments)

I also give importance to al-Albānī’s Irwā’ al-Ghalīl—it's one of the early books I refer to. I like to see his authentications, even if I don’t blindly follow them. I like to know what Shaykh Nāṣir (al-Albānī) said—though we were smiling because of the niqāb issue, which I’m sure we’ll get to.

If I’m not convinced with Shaykh al-Albānī’s grading, I go to Kutub al-Rijāl. I look at al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (الضعفاء, the weak narrators) by al-ʿUqaylī. I also look at al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl (الكامل في الضعفاء) by Ibn ʿAdī.

I like the Tahdhīb (تهذيب, refinement/biographical work) of Shaykh Māzir. Shaykh Māzir al-Sarsāwī’s Tahdhīb—he personally gave it to me when I was in al-Qasīm. He actually handed me the copy himself.

Tārīkh al-Awsaṭ (تاريخ الأوسط) by Ibn ʿUqaylī—I look at that. ʿIlal (علل, hidden defects in narrations) by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal—I like the taḥqīq (تحقيق, critical edition) of Shaykh Maṣrūr Allāh ʿAbbās, and I use it a lot. Tārīkh Abī Zurʿah al-Dimashqī—I like that too.

Ibn Ḥajar’s al-Mīzān (الميزان)—I mentioned already. I use his Tahdhīb; it’s 35 volumes, mā shāʾ Allāh. ʿĀbid Maʿrūs's version is available, but I don't use it as much as I use Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (تهذيب التهذيب) by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī.

Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (سير أعلام النبلاء)—a must-go-to for me. Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (ميزان الاعتدال)—I also consult it, but not as much as I consult Lisān al-Mīzān (لسان الميزان) by Ibn Ḥajar. I prefer that.

The taḥqīq of ʿAbd al-Ṣahab al-Ghudda—what’s funny is, good news for the students of knowledge is that Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, in shāʾ Allāh, is going to be published soon by Dār al-Birr, in shāʾ Allāh.

Ibn Ḥajar also has the Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (كتاب الضعفاء). Al-Nasāʾī’s work. Al-Dāraquṭnī’s ʿIlal—it means a lot to me. ʿIlal Wāridah (العلل الواردة) by al-Dāraquṭnī. Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb by Ibn Abī Ḥātim. Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn (كتاب المجروحين) —those are the books I look at.

Kutub al-Muṣṭalaḥ (كتب المصطلح, books on hadith terminology): I go to mainly two books, and the rest only when needed. I go to Fatḥ al-Mughīth (فتح المغيث) by al-Sakhāwī, which is the sharḥ (شرح, explanation) of al-Fiyah al-ʿIrāqī (ألفية العراقي), and I mostly stick to that. If I want more, I also go to Tadbīb al-Rāwī (تدريب الراوي) by al-Suyūṭī. I think these two books are very important for me.

Beyond that, I refer to:

• Maʿrifat ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth (معرفة علوم الحديث) by al-Ḥākim
• Taqyīd wa al-Īḍāḥ (تقييد والإيضاح) by al-ʿIrāqī
• Nukhbat al-Fikar (نخبة الفكر)
• Ikhtiṣār ʿUlūm al-Ḥadīth (اختصار علوم الحديث)

Kutub al-ʿAqīdah (كتب العقيدة): I look at all the books of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim—no exceptions. All their books are important for me.

For example:

• Mukhtaṣar al-Ṣawāʿiq al-Mursalah (مختصر الصواعق المرسلة)—I give it importance.
• Any student of knowledge not reading their works—there’s always something missing, a gap you can feel.

Other essential books:

• al-Sharīʿah (الشريعة) by al-Imām al-Ājurrī
• al-Radd ʿalā al-Jahmiyyah (الرد على الجهمية) by al-Dārimī
• Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunnah by Abū al-Qāsim Hibatullāh al-Lālakāʾī
• Sharḥ al-Sunnah by ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal
• Kitāb al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim
• Risālah al-Sijzī (رسالة السجزي) on al-Ḥarf wa al-Ṣawt
• Maʿārij al-Qubūl (معارج القبول), Sharḥ al-Sulḥ al-Uṣūl by Ḥāfiẓ al-Ḥakimī—three volumes I return to often.

Kutub al-Fiqh (كتب الفقه): For comparative fiqh (fiqh muqāran - الفقه المقارن), I mostly go back to three books:

• al-Majmūʿ (المجموع) by al-Nawawī
• al-Mughnī (المغني) by Ibn Qudāmah
• al-Muḥallā (المحلى) by Ibn Ḥazm

These books give me an understanding of the different madhāhib (schools of thought). Note: Ibn Qudāmah quoting other madhāhib (e.g., Ḥanafiyyah or Mālikiyyah) is not always precise, as he’s Ḥanbalī. So I also go to the original sources of those madhāhib.

I also benefit from:

• al-Awsāṭ (الأوسط) by Ibn al-Mundhir — I consider it a fourth essential book.
• I also refer to Kutub al-Shāfiʿiyyah and Kutub al-Madhāhib in general.

Uṣūl al-Fiqh (أصول الفقه): I love going to:

• Sharḥ al-Kawkab al-Munīr (شرح الكوكب المنير) — very important for me
• al-Barak al-Saʿūd li Ṭālib al-Raqī al-Suʿūd (البرك السعود لطالب الرقي الصعود)
  • I mainly focus on Nashr al-Bunūd (نشر البنود) in that
• Irshād al-Fuḥūl (إرشاد الفحول) by al-Shawkānī
  • I really like it because it's taḥqīq fī ʿilm al-uṣūl (critical analysis in the science of legal theory), and he is not restricted by a madhhab.

So, in total, the four main Uṣūl books I return to are:

• Irshād al-Fuḥūl – Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Shawkānī
• Barak al-Saʿūd
• Nashr al-Bunūd
• al-Kawkab al-Munīr
• al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ (البحر المحيط) by al-Zarkashī

Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyyah (قواعد فقهية, legal maxims): Since the three madhāhib (Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, and Ḥanbalī) don’t differ much here, I don’t delve deeply.

Two books I use:

• al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyyah by Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Rajab
• al-Majmūʿ al-Mudhhab fī Qawāʿid al-Madhhab by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-ʿAlāʾ al-Kaykaldī
  • A valuable book (kitāb qayyim), published by the Ministry of Awqāf, Kuwait.

Tārīkh (History):

• Tārīkh al-Islām by al-Dhahabī
• al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah by Ibn Kathīr
• Shudhūr al-Dhahab by Ibn ʿImād
• Wafayāt al-Aʿyān by Ibn Khallikān

For specific individuals like Ibn Taymiyyah, I go to:

• ʿUqūd al-Durriyyah by Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī
• al-Badr al-Ṭāliʿ by al-Shawkānī
• al-Durr al-Kāminah — I like reading that.

On Daʿwah al-Najdiyyah, which hasn’t been covered much, I go to:

• ʿUlamāʾ al-Najd by ʿAbdullāh Bāssām

Naḥw (Grammar):

To be honest, I mainly focus on:

• Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik (ألفية ابن مالك)
• Sharḥ Ibn ʿAqīl I rarely go beyond that to Sharḥ al-Mālik, since what we need for this podcast is already covered in Alfiyyat Ibn Mālik.

Lugha (Arabic Lexicons):

• Lisān al-ʿArab
• Tahdhīb al-Lughah by al-Azharī
• Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj
• al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ
• Mukhtār al-Ṣiḥāḥ

Kutub al-Adab (Arabic Literature and Manners):

The first is diction. I haven't needed much literary reference for the podcast, but for personal reading:

• Adab al-Kātib by Ibn Qutaybah
• ʿUyūn al-Akhbār by Ibn Qutaybah
• al-Kāmil by Ibn al-Mubarrid
• Even al-Bayān wa al-Tabyīn by al-Jāḥiẓ (al-Muʿtazilī)—I read that for personal benefit.

 And I really give a lot of importance to Muhammad Shakir's works—the brother of Ahmad Shakir. I like his works; they are very profound for me. I think my initial intention from asking you what kind of books you read in preparation for each episode—you far surpassed that. You’ve given something that a student of knowledge can take from the last 10 or 15 minutes and almost keep that video and use it throughout his years of seeking knowledge, and understand the different kinds of books.

What’s interesting for me is that you kind of organize your mental library in different sciences—like Hadith, Aqeedah (عقيدة – creed), Fiqh (فقه – jurisprudence). That’s something that you have in your mind: if you're preparing for a podcast and you know this particular issue of Fiqh is going to come up, you go to your Fiqh library and say, “Okay…” Is that how it works? It’s just interesting to get an insight into that kind of studying.

There are two things: a researcher has to be a person who has already studied before. You can't just go to a book and read it yourself—you’re going to get misguided. If you really want to learn, you have to have a Shaykh (شيخ – teacher) to teach you.

So that’s why I say to students of knowledge: for example, if you're studying Fiqh, like the school of Imam Al-Shafi’i (الإمام الشافعي), you study Matn Ibn Shuja’ (متن ابن شجاع), you finish it with the teacher. Then after that, you do Kitab Yaqut al-Nafis (كتاب ياقوت النفيس), then ‘Umdat al-Salik (عمدة السالك) and ‘Umdat al-Nasik (عمدة الناسك), and then you do Al-Zubad by Ibn al-Raslan (الزبد لابن رسلان), and then Al-Minhaj by Imam Al-Nawawi (المنهاج للإمام النووي). You finish all of that.

After that, go—do mutala’ah (مطالعة – self-study), go into the books, research. Don’t let anyone stop you now. You’ve studied with a teacher, he’s taught you these books, you’ve gone through this program—you’re free to go.

Tawheed (توحيد – monotheism), for example: you study Thalāthat al-Usūl (ثلاثة الأصول – The Three Fundamental Principles), and you study Kitab al-Tawheed (كتاب التوحيد – The Book of Monotheism), and Nawāqid al-Islām (نواقض الإسلام – The Nullifiers of Islam), Usūl al-Sittah (الأصول الستة – The Six Foundations), and all of those books of Tawheed. Then you study the books of Aqeedah: Al-Wāsitiyyah, Al-Hamawiyyah, Al-Tadmuriyyah, Al-Tahawiyyah (الواسطية، الحموية، التدمورية، الطحاوية). You study all of those books.

Now, you should be reading Al-Hujjah fī Bayān al-Mahajjah by Abū Qāsim al-Taymi (الحجة في بيان المحجة لأبي القاسم التيمي), you should be reading Kitāb I’tiqād A’immah al-Salaf by Abū Bakr al-Ismā’īlī (كتاب اعتقاد أئمة السلف لأبي بكر الإسماعيلي), and Al-‘Aqeedah al-Salaf wa Ashāb al-Hadīth by Abū ‘Uthmān al-Sābūnī (العقيدة السلف وأصحاب الحديث لأبي عثمان الصابوني). Go—go!

You’ve studied with a teacher, he’s taught you these. The main, important framework—he’s given it to you. Now research in this.

You study Nahw (نحو – Arabic grammar), for example: Al-Ājurrūmiyyah (الآجرومية), you’ve done Mutammimat al-Ājurrūmiyyah (متممة الآجرومية), then you did Lāmiyyat al-Af‘āl (لامية الأفعال), then you went back to Qaṭr al-Nadā wa Ball al-Ṣadā (قطر الندى وبل الصدى), and then you did Alfiyyah al-Munawwari (ألفية المنوري). Why are you going to wait for a teacher to explain Mughni al-Labīb by Ibn Hishām (مغني اللبيب لابن هشام)? You don’t need it. Now you’ve got the keys.

When you open those books, you’re not reading something and scratching your head, “I don’t understand this.” You’ve got the foundation.

So to bring it back to The Hot Seat, one thing that’s always really intrigued me is that we’re dealing with contemporary issues. These are issues that many people see as new—issues that are coming up. And time and time again, we sit opposite each other, and you’re bringing classical sources. And it really shows that the classical scholars of the past—the early generations, like some of the books you’ve just mentioned—they really didn’t leave any stone unturned. No matter what issue comes up, you’re able to bring it back into one of those books.

Having said that, do you ever look at non-Muslim sources to really understand particular topics? Like when we’re talking about a particular issue that we’re going to discuss on the podcast, do you ever go to the Western sources?

Definitely I do. I do look at some Western academics and what they’ve written. But remember, I’m going to mention some places—some things I look at—but what I try my best not to do is to bring contemporary things, especially even contemporary scholars. I try to make it classical. I try to keep it to the classical Fiqh books and the classical scholars instead of quoting contemporary scholars.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it—it’s fine, it’s good—it’s just not what I focus on. I believe these early scholars have already given us these answers. Especially when it comes to Western academic researchers—Alhamdulillah (الحمد لله – praise be to Allah), a lot of our youngsters, a lot of Muslims in Western countries, have already read these things. It’s available for them. And a lot of the speakers today in the world—Muslim speakers—they bring these things to the Muslims anyway.

But what Muslims, I feel, are hungry for—what they’re in need of, what they desire—is the knowledge of the classical scholars. And I’ve seen that. In my circles, I’ve spoken about these issues and people ask, “Have they said something about this? Is there research on this issue?” A lot of people ask those questions.

There’s not enough Islamic research on these issues. And I say: There is. They’re filled with these things. You just have to learn how to bring those things out.

Like—you know what it is? These scholars have given us the framework, they’ve given us the Qawāʿid (قواعد – principles). Someone needs to take those Qawāʿid and apply them to these contemporary issues. The scholars are not going to give you every single time that “1 + 1 = 2.” They’re not going to say that to you. They just teach you what “+” does. So if “1 + 2” is given to you, you know it’s 3 now—because you know what “+” does.

It’s like when you learn the Tajwīd (تجويد – Qur’anic pronunciation) rules—you don’t learn every single individual letter. You just learn a rule and then apply it to whatever letter.

Exactly.

 So the poet said that our religion hasn't left anything behind. That's why it's such a powerful religion — it's built on qawāʿid (قواعد – principles) and ḍawābit (ضوابط – regulatory frameworks). You need to be grounded enough and sharp to take those principles and apply them.

So Ibn Taymiyyah, when the time of the Tatar came — and the Mongols were basically invading Muslim lands and killing and massacring the people — Ibn Taymiyyah had to take these principles and apply them to his situation. Do you understand my point?

The mujtahidāt (مجتَهِدات – matters requiring independent juristic reasoning) and the nawāzil (نوازل – unprecedented legal issues) that were taking place at the time of Ibn Taymiyyah required him to go to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and apply them in those situations.

So I think it’s there — it’s really there. It just requires thorough research; it requires deep understanding of these classical works. And I hope, in shāʾ Allāh taʿālā (إن شاء الله تعالى – if Allah wills, the Most High), I can dedicate my life to bringing those things to the English-speaking world, in shāʾ Allāh (إن شاء الله – if Allah wills).

So let’s talk — before we move on to start taking a question from the homosexuality podcast — just this introductory kind of approach you have to preparing for a podcast. Most times, we agree on a topic, then you go away and do your research, I go away and do mine, and we don’t even really communicate with each other that much. Maybe here or there on an odd issue, but not in detail.

What is your kind of approach? Do you know you’re going to be coming on a podcast where a lot of questions and doubts are going to be raised — do you first look at the doubts, or do you first look at what supports your position, and then look at what’s against you? Like, what is the process you undertake?

So, for example, you mention a topic we're going to speak about — I don’t know what your questions are going to be. So my focus, first of all, is that I need to bring uṣūl (أصول – foundational principles) and ḍawābit (ضوابط – regulatory frameworks). And I know that the majority of the time, any point you bring up — I already have an understanding of it, because, sadly, people just keep regurgitating the same points.

Humans just keep repeating the same arguments. They were responded to before, but people still bring them back again. They might slightly alter the wording, but it's still the same point. It doesn’t escape one of the principles you've already learned.

I rarely sit in the podcast with you — rarely — and feel like, “Oh, that question is actually really unique.” Your style of doing it, Allāhumma bārik (اللهم بارك – may Allah bless it), is really unique. The way you present those points is very strong, and you’re gifted in that. But generally, the arguments — I feel like I’ve heard them before. I understand them.

So what I do is — I don’t go to the shubhah (شبهة – doubt) first. No. I bring the principles that are comprehensive. When I set this foundation, any shubhah you bring can’t escape these general ḍawābit (ضوابط عامة – universal regulatory principles).

If you look at the Qur'an — that’s how it works. The Jews, for example, what did they say? They said, "Yadullāhi maghlūla" (يد الله مغلولة – “The hand of Allah is chained”). Meaning, they accused Allah, subḥānahu wa taʿālā (سبحانه وتعالى – Glorified and Exalted is He), of being stingy.

But Allah responded, "Gullat aydīhim wa luʿinū bimā qālū bal yadahū mabsūṭatān" (غلت أيديهم ولعنوا بما قالوا بل يداه مبسوطتان – “May their hands be shackled and they be cursed for what they said. Rather, both His hands are outstretched.”)

Allah spoke longer than they did. Their shubhah was very small, but Allah responded with a detailed, lengthy refutation.

So the point is, I try to get to the ḍawābit, the principles, the qawāʿid (principles) — I set that down first. Then, when we come to the shubuhāt (شبهات – doubts), it’s easy to deflect them because these principles are solid. They're really hard to go outside of.

So whatever you bring — it’s either not going to be ṣarīḥ (صريح – explicit), or it’s going to be ḍaʿīf (ضعيف – weak). So it’s either going to be a weak argument — something that’s easy to prove the weakness of, because I’ve looked at the asānīd (أسانيد – chains of narration) and riwāyāt (روايات – narrations) — or it’s not ṣarīḥ. It’s not directly addressing the point we’re talking about.

For me personally, if I read the shubuhāt first, it distracts me from focusing on establishing the principles. So I try to bring what's for me first. Then I go into the books and write down all the shubuhāt. Like, “There’s this issue,” and so on.

There have been quite a few times, to be honest, here or there, where you've brought a doubt that I wasn’t fully acquainted with in that moment. I hadn’t looked at it that way before. But it always goes back to the original principles. It's always easy to return it to the qawāʿid and ḍawābit I’ve previously mentioned.

I think one thing the viewers have to understand is that the way The Hot Seat is designed — it’s a very one-sided conversation. You're always on the defensive. I’m always asking, asking, asking, and you have to answer the questions.

If we flipped it, and it was a normal discussion outside the setting — and you were allowed to ask me questions or flip it on me and come on the offensive — it would be a totally different story. It’s very, very easy. I have to give it to you: your efforts are very strong. The points you bring are very strong, to be honest.

It's important for people to know that if you were allowed to flip the argument and ask me questions, it would become very clear that you’re on the truth. It's just that the format of the podcast only allows me to ask the questions. That’s important for viewers to know.

And that’s one of the reasons I prefer not to know or read your arguments beforehand. Number one, it sharpens my thinking process and how I address the points. And secondly, it makes it feel more authentic. The audience should feel that their arguments are being authentically presented — that their points were really brought forward.

Okay, let’s go on to the Q&A. So with the other episodes, I did mention that what I’ve done is go through the comments we received on those episodes.

Obviously, with the topic on homosexuality, it was removed by YouTube — and when that went, so did the comments. But I looked through our email address. And just to remind the people at home, if they have any questions, they can email us at questions@amau.org.

We did receive a question that is relevant to this podcast. Somebody asked via email: "Am I allowed to work in a school that heavily promotes LGBTQ tolerance?"

I mean, the country that you're in right now—for example, if this person is in the UK or America—the whole country is tolerant towards the LGBT community. There’s not really much you can personally do.

So, if the school is tolerant but isn’t propagating it—not necessarily pushing it down your throat, and it’s not telling you you have to promote it—that’s not what they’re saying. And also, it’s not affecting your dīn (religion), and it’s not affecting you, then in shā’ Allāh (if Allah wills), it shouldn’t be ḥarām (forbidden). But I would encourage you to leave that kind of environment and walk away from it. Try to find somewhere else.

But if they’re not forcing you to push it—for example, they’re not telling you, “You have to teach this and mention this is fine”—if they’re not saying that to you, and also your dīn is not getting affected, then in shā’ Allāh, I don’t see a prohibition.

It’s interesting you mentioned that your country itself is tolerant, because moving on to the second podcast, that’s exactly what we spoke about. We spoke about the issue of hijrah (migration for the sake of Allah), and we wanted to look at it really from the perspective of whether it’s obligatory or not. That’s really what we wanted to focus on.

So let’s just give the viewers a reminder of the kind of things that we discussed on that podcast. The question that I want us to answer together is not whether hijrah is a good thing—it’s whether it is obligatory upon the Muslims. And I’d really like to focus our conversation around that point.

Hijrah is three types. First of all, three types:

1. There’s hijrah from ʿamal al-sū’ (evil deeds) — you do hijrah from evil actions.
2. The second type is hijrah from balad al-sū’ (evil land) — migrating from a corrupt or evil land.
3. The third type is hijrah from aṣḥāb al-sū’ (evil companions) — migrating and staying away from bad people.

Ibn al-ʿArabī said hijrah—the type we’re talking about here, from the land—means to leave the land of the disbelievers.

Before we even go into the concept of hijrah, or whether it’s obligatory or not, the concept of al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ (loyalty and disavowal) within the Muslims—sorry, within the lands of the non-Muslims—and coexisting with them and staying with them: it weakens this concept.

My question is: do you think that maybe, based on your personal experiences, you’re taking this a bit extreme? The Western countries now are working towards assimilating the Muslims with the non-Muslims. They’re forcing you to accept British values. Muslims are being put in situations where they’re asked: “Are you a Muslim first or are you British first?”

There are two conditions when, if they are present, hijrah becomes wājib (obligatory):

1. You can’t practice your religion.
2. You have the ability to leave that land of the disbelievers.

So what does it mean to be able to practice your religion? What does that entail?

Great scholars have explained what it means. It means two things:

1. That you can openly display the symbols of Islam in its totality—not just parts of it. Things like the adhān (call to prayer), ṣalāh (prayer), and ṣiyām (fasting).

Let me ask you now: can we do the adhān in the open in the UK?

There are some masājid (mosques) that can, yeah.

But in the whole entire UK?

No, you can’t.

So we have, in the entire United Kingdom—at least as far as you and I know—only one masjid that’s basically open to do the adhān in. That’s considered shaʿāʾir (symbols) of Islam. That’s one of the biggest symbols.

Okay, but how does that affect anybody other than the mu’adhdhin (caller to prayer)? I’m a normal guy—I can go to bed, I can wear a thawb (Islamic garment), I can live my life.

No, but you said you can implement your religion.

Yes, I can implement my religion. I don’t care about the adhān being called; I can implement my religion. I’m not the one calling the adhān. It’s nothing to do with me implementing my religion.

Theoretically, I can’t really dispute what you’ve been saying.

Practically—this is where the game changes. Nowadays, even in a Muslim country, there are clubs, there is alcohol. Even when you send your kids to school, there are non-Muslim expats. You’re living next door to a non-Muslim in an apartment building.

So where should Muslims go? Where?

There was an English guy from the UK. All of us didn’t want to hear it. If you want to hear it, close your windows, listen to yourself. Don’t impose it on everybody else. He closed the window. He put the music down.

But the point I’m trying to come to is: I could never do that in the UK. It’s a beautiful picture, but it’s going to come to an end. Because none of these Muslim countries give you visas and citizenship. And ultimately, you and your family are going to have to end up back in the UK.

Who said hijrah is something very easy? Who?

 Did we say that in order to do Hijrah (migration), countries have to let you? No, it's not that. It's hard — the people who are able to do that are very, very few. And therefore, issuing a ruling on all of the Muslims because of what a few of the Muslims can do — that seems unjust.

There's an ayah (verse) in the Qur’an where Allah ﷻ connects Hijrah with Jihad. You can imagine the weight of that. Allah Ta’ala says:

وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَهَاجَرُوا وَجَاهَدُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ آوَوا وَنَصَرُوا أُولَئِكَهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ حَقًّا لَهُم مَّغْفِرَةٌ وَرِزْقٌ كَرِيمٌ

"Those who believed and migrated and fought in the cause of Allah, and those who gave shelter and supported — it is they who are the true believers. For them is forgiveness and a noble provision."

We are talking about this discussion all this time. What I was talking about is a man staying in these countries. The story changes when it's a mother and kids.

So some of the points we discussed there — we talked about the definition of Hijrah. We talked about when it becomes obligatory. We talked about whether it's even practical — like, where can the Muslims go?

And I think a lot of things that also came through in that were more from your side — a kind of emotional, heartfelt plea to the Muslims and advice to them on this topic, especially the Muslims living in the West.

I don't know if you have any thoughts about what you can remember from that podcast?

Yeah, to be honest — even if we put aside the Ahkam (Islamic rulings) and the regulations — as a Muslim who lives in a land like that, where religion is being disrespected, where your Deen (religion) is being attacked by the non-Muslims from every direction, where the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is being put down and belittled — the Hijab has been banned, for example, in France — things like that.

Put halal and haram aside, put the hukm shari’i (Islamic ruling) aside. As a Muslim, does this not affect you?

100%. This is where, personally, I was pleading to people’s hearts: where do you think you stand in a situation like that?

I'll give you an example. If you went to someone’s house, and they never fed you, or they kept telling you, “I don’t like you in my country,” or they told you, “Get out of my house, get out of my house, I don’t want you to be here,” or the person made you sleep on the floor, or insulted your parent — things like that — would you still stay in that place? Of course not. It's almost humiliating to stay.

So why do you stay in a land like that where the non-Muslims have come out clearly and categorically and said, “We don’t want you in our country”?

I know this sounds very harsh, and a lot of Muslims might get upset with this — but this is their country. Don’t lie to yourself.

For example, Pakistan is your country, right? A white guy flew over to Pakistan — is that his land? What if they give him Pakistani nationality — would you still consider him to be a true Pakistani? No.

So I don’t see why the table turns when it comes to them.

I agree. And I think when we see these issues coming up in the West — like Muslims lobbying and complaining: “Why are they teaching our kids about LGBTQ issues in school?” — that’s their country. If you don’t like it, you have to leave. That’s kind of the way it works.

I would almost flip it. Imagine if we were in a Muslim country — and obviously the whole system is based around Islam, and it's made easy to practice Islam — and a non-Muslim comes in and says, “Why can’t I find alcohol here?” You’d look at him a bit weird. Like, what did you expect?

Some Muslims — maybe they don’t see it from this perspective. Maybe they’ve been in the West for so long, so many generations. But ultimately, I do empathise to a certain extent with those people who say: “Why are Muslims even complaining about what we teach in schools? It’s got nothing to do with them.”

I do get where they’re coming from. It’s an interesting one. I think this is personally my favourite episode that we’ve done so far. It’s an issue that — obviously, both of us were born and raised in the UK, and we both have now made Hijrah, we came to this country — and it's something that I would say is in my top three decisions in my life.

Alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), it’s one of the top 3 to 5 decisions I’ve ever made in my life — to do Hijrah — and it’s one of those things where I never understood the impact it would have on me. Never.

You realised it when you left the country?

100%. You become so desensitised to it once you’re in the environment.

To give context — it’s not that I was comfortable in the UK. I loved the UK. I’ve got stories from my parents — they tell me, when we used to go on family holidays and I used to come back to Heathrow airport, I used to kiss the ground and say, “I’m home. This is the UK.”

And to come from that mindset — to really leaving — and realising it’s only once you leave that you realise you're allowed.

We’re talking about Islam obviously, but even secondary to that — just the safety. It’s OK to go outside when it’s dark. You can’t do that in the UK. It’s a whole different mindset.

But even adding on to what you just mentioned — I really think a lot of people, when it comes to Muslim countries, the first countries that come to their mind are Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain.

There are more than 50 Muslim countries.

There’s Bangladesh — that’s a Muslim country. There’s Bahrain. There’s Brunei. There’s Djibouti. There’s Egypt. There’s Jordan. There’s Kuwait. There’s the Maldives. There’s Malaysia. There’s Mauritania. There’s Morocco. There’s Nigeria. There’s Oman—

Nigeria? Is it a Muslim country?

I’m not sure, I don’t know. But Muslims are more than 50%. That’s one of the questions we’re going to come to.

Nigeria for example, Oman for example, Pakistan, Qatar is a Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Some countries I mentioned, like Yemen for example, and Somalia — you might think to yourself, “There might be wars,” or things like that. Even though — what I’ve seen is that the way things are projected, versus when you’re really there — it’s different.

Some of these countries, when you see them from the outside, you’re watching on the news and you’re like, “Oh, this place is…” but in reality, it’s not like that when you go there.

Even Gambia, for example. The population of the people in Gambia is 1.8 million. 95% of them are Muslims. MashaAllah (what Allah wills).

I’ve heard good news about it. I’ve spoken to brothers about it. Very low cost of living. Even Shaykh Abdul-Razzaq al-Badr has opened an Islamic university there. Good and khayr (goodness) is happening in Gambia, for example.

Also in my country, Somalia — for example, there’s good. There are a lot of things happening. In Pakistan, there are ulama (scholars) I know that are there — who are spreading da’wah (Islamic preaching), who are spreading khayr and Islam and everything.

Malaysia — I travelled and I went there.

Turkey — Allahumma barik (may Allah bless it) — the good news that’s coming from Turkey, and the khayr that’s happening there, and the freedom of da’wah and everything — is amazing.

So what I’m saying is: Sudan — it can go on and on. Already I can really go on.

Why do you, first of all, think about Saudi Arabia? Why do you, first of all, think about— you understand my point?

 I think it really is a topic that I could talk for hours and hours upon I just think that since I've been in this country four and a half years the west, particularly the UK which I really have more of an understanding than the US the UK has just got worse and worse to the point where I often think for people staying in the UK you might think you're okay you might look at yourself, your wife, your children and think you're okay but if you don't leave that country then generation after generation who knows when somewhere in your lineage atheism, Christianity someone's going to go off and certainly your whole lineage is cut off so do you think St. Albans is also the same as London? there are a lot of people who are saying maybe London the crime rates the Muslims being exposed to this filth and evil and stuff like that maybe in rural areas it's a city it's a city but it's a small city it's just outside London so it's much smaller than London there's no doubt that different areas within the UK are different to each other in terms of their practice of Islam we would never say Birmingham is the same as St. Albans Birmingham is a much more bigger Muslim community and there is a point that the crime rate in London in particular is very very high but you're never going to escape the fact that no matter which area in the UK or which area in England for example or even in the UK there's principles that are standard for everywhere like for example the laws that allow you to teach these kind of things in schools like for example that the Adhan is not called out loud, it is in one masjid in London the fact that even wearing a thobe and a beard and having a beard and walking around the street you just don't feel comfortable and I don't feel comfortable for my wife for example to walk outside with a hijab or jilbab these kind of things will stay standard no matter where you are in the UK I feel why the distinction between hijab and jilbab? we're going to come to that later on I know some people do so don't worry it's coming, this is the hot seat reversed ok I do want to get through some of these questions because we actually had a lot of questions for this particular episode the first one is and you alluded to this earlier when you said is Nigeria a Muslim country some people actually and I think this was actually my fault that I should have really asked it on the podcast we should have gone into what exactly is a Muslim country how do you define a Muslim country so yeah the concept of Daru-e-Kufrin or Daru-e-Islamin this is something to be honest when you look at the great scholars of fiqh whether they be the Hanafi or the Maliki or the Hanabila there isn't one concrete response that the scholars have in the Manat al-Hukm al-Daru-e-Kufrin or Islam that this land is a land of Kufr or it's a land of Islam there isn't like a clear cut statement where the scholars and they have evidences for it like that everyone has their view everyone pushes their view do you judge it based on the ruler do you base it on the people what do you base it on so there's very conflicting views and there isn't a clear cut evidence in the issue there are two evidences generally the two strongest evidences that are used the hadith of Buraidah radiallahu anhu where he said كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أمر أميرا على جيش أو سرية أوصاه في خاصة بتقوى الله وما معه من المسلمين خيرا the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم if he would ever send an expedition صلى الله عليه وسلم or he sent an army صلى الله عليه وسلم he would advise them be conscious of Allah fear Allah أغزوا بسم الله في سبيل الله قاتلوا من كفر بالله أغزوا ولا تغلوا ولا تغدروا ولا تمثلوا ولا تقتلوا وليداً don't kill children don't kill women don't deceive don't steal and loot fight with those who are disbelieving in Allah restrict your fighting to those who are the disbelievers don't kill other people women and children don't kill them وإذا لقيت عدوك من المشركين فدعوهم إلى ثلاث خصال أو خلال وإذا لقيت عدوك من المشركين فدعوهم إلى ثلاث خصال أو خلال and if you meet your army don't fight with them straight away call them to three things so in this hadith the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in that he says ثم دعوهم إلى التحول من دارهم إلى دار المهاجرين ثم دعوهم إلى التحول من دارهم إلى دار المهاجرين وأخبرهم أنهم إن فعلوا ذلك فلهم ما للمهاجرين وعليه ما على المهاجرين the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used the word دار here let them move if they accept this message from you then let them move to the dar of the dar of the muhajireen and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned the dar al muhajireen so the scholars they try to say from this that the dar al muhajireen it means that the muhajireen have power they're in charge of that land you're kind of talking governmental now yeah some fuqaha they took from there maybe it's a governmental perspective some scholars they said no we look at the people who are in that land and the people who reside in that land so for example Shaykh al-Islam bin Ibn Taymiyyah he says وَقَوْنُ الْأَرَضِ دَارُ قُفْرٍ أَوْ دَارُ إِيمَانٍ أَوْ دَارَ الْفَاسِقِينَ لَيْسَ صِفَةً لَازِمَةً لَهَا بَلْ هِيَ صِفَةٌ عَرِضةٌ بِحَسَبِ سُكَانِهَا Ibn Taymiyyah says first of all calling this land Darul Kufrin or Darul Iman or Darul Fasiqin he says it's not first of all a صفة لازمة لها it's not something that's consistent this land is always going to be it can change from time to time بَلْ هِيَ صِفَةٌ عَرِضةٌ بِحَسَبِ سُكَانِهَا it changes from time to time and we look at the population so he's indicating more instead of the governments more the people exactly even another place وَالْبِقَاعُ تَتَغَيِّرُ أَحْكَامُهَا بِتَغَيِّرُ أَحْوَالِ أَهْلِهَا the land changes because of its people فَقَدْ تَكُونُ الْبُقْعَةُ دَارُ كُفْرٍ إِذَا كَانَ أَهْلُهَا كُفَارًا فَقَدْ تَكُونُ الْبُقْعَةُ دَارُ كُفْرٍ إِذَا كَانَ أَهْلُهَا كُفَارًا ثُمَّ تَصِيرُ دَارُ إِسْلَامٍ إِذَا أَسْلَامَ أَهْلُهَا this land can be the lands of the disbelievers if the people of that land are disbelievers and it can change to become Darul Islam if the people are the Muslims كَمَا كَانَتْ مَكَّةُ شَرَفَهَا اللَّهُ فِي أَوَّلِ الْأَمْرِ دَارَ كُفْرٍ وَحَرْبٍ and so Mecca was once upon a time دارَ كُفْرٍ وَحَرْبٍ so it changed also you can sense from the hadith of Anas ibn Malik in Bukhari and Muslim it mentions, Anas says كَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَى اللَّهِ وَيُغِيرُ إِذَا طَلَعَ الْفَجْرُ فَإِذْ سَمِعَ أَذَانٍ أَمْسَكَ وَإِلَّا أَغَارَهُ Prophet S.A.W. used to listen to the Fajr prayer he wants to hear the Adhan and if he heard the Adhan he would hold back if he heard the Adhan he would leave them and if he didn't then he would wage war on them so the symbols of Islam have to be apparent the people have to be Muslims وَلِذَٰلِكَ ابْنُ الْقَيِّمِ even attributes this in his kitab he mentions this is the call of the Jumhur he says the majority of the scholars are of the opinion it's the land that the Muslims stay in وَجَرَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَحْكَامُ الْإِسْلَامِ and the rulings of Islam apply on it وَمَا لَمْ يَجْرِ أَحْكَامُ الْإِسْلَامِ لَمْ يَكُنْ دَارَ إِسْلَامٍ and the land where the rulings, the symbols of Islam and Ahkam of Islam are not applied then it's not a Dar of Islam so it's conflicting views وَلِذَٰلِكَ الْإِمَامُ الشَّوْكَانِيُّ he says الْإِعْتِبَارُ بِظُهُورِ الْكَرِمَةِ فَإِنْ كَانَتِ الْأَوَامِرُ وَالنَّوَاهِ فِي الدَّارِ لِأَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ بِحَيْثُ لَا يَسْتَطِعُ مَنْ فِيهَا مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ أَنْ يَتَظَاهَرَ بِكُفْرِ إِلَّا لِكَونِهِ مَأْذُونًا لَهُ بِذَلِكَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ فَهَذِهِ دَارُ أَإِسْلَامِ وَلَا يَضُرُّ ظُهُورُ الْخِصَالِ الْكُفْرِيَةِ فِيهَا لِأَنْهَا لَمْ تَظْحَرُ بِقُوَّةِ الْكُفَارِ وَلَا بِصَوْلَتِهِمْ وَإِذَا كَانَ الْأَمْرُ بِالْعَكْسِ فَالدَّارُ بِالْعَكْسِ رحمه الله in other words he says what we say is whose commandments applies in that land when they say something it has to be done in the land things are happening in that land for example there is kufriyat taking place it still doesn't take away from it being a land of an Islam and he also mentioned this issue of daaru kufri daaru iman a lot of people make it into a big back and forth he says there is really not a big fuss about it to be honest because he says the khilaf there is no thamara that is taken from it in the sense if a Muslim goes to the land of the disbelievers he is still ma'soom his blood is sacred you can't touch him you can't kill him and if a kafir who is muharib a kafir which is harbi if he goes to the land of the Muslims he is still harbi even if he is in the land of the Muslims but it does make a difference in terms of the hijrah discussion because people are told to migrate to a land of Islam so in that sense then this is quite an important important definition but I suppose the least we can say is that a country that has a Muslim government majority Muslims and that the symbols like the adhan, the symbols of Islam are apparent no doubt that is a land of Islam even in aqeedah books sometimes they mention like Abu Bakr al Ismaili the great shafi'i, faqih and a'alim in his kitab i'tiqad al hadith he mentions he says they see they see they see they see the land to be the land of the Muslims and they don't see it as the land of the disbelievers the mu'tazila see the land of the Muslims as the land of the kafir madama nida'u bil salati wal iqamati biha zahireen biha zahireen wa aluha mumakaneena minha amineen he says they see that land to be the land of the Muslims and not the land of the disbelievers not like the way the mu'tazila see it Basma, Atan, Amr bin Ubaid those who came from them madama nida'u bil salati wal iqamati biha zahireen as long as the salah and the iqam are apparent wa aluha mumakaneena and the people have been given tamkeen they've been grounded governance has been given to them in that land so he mentions those two shurats as well for me personally, I've looked at that I've spent years, years looking at this issue I can't really pinpoint what seems to be right but sheikh Ibn Baz he says the hukum is for the aghlabiya the majority of the people of that land and sheikh al Allama al Bani something like that as well I think like when it comes to individual countries it often gets difficult because of this very reason that it's hard to place a general principle but we did have on the comments a number of different countries, people asked about Lebanon Turkey, a number of different countries but I think one country that probably is worth mentioning because it was mentioned over and over again on the comments is India, and India is as you know, I think one of the largest third largest population in the world in terms of number of Muslims just in terms of number of Muslims, not percentage but number of Muslims I've not been to India but I know you have is the adhan called out loud? The adhan is called out loud there's more masajid in India than many Muslim countries however at the same time under the current government, the Indian Muslims are also being oppressed. Would this be classified as a Muslim land or would it be classified as a land that someone has to make hijrah from? No doubt, India is not a Muslim country that's the reality but whether the people need to do hijrah and the situations regarding that per se in India really requires the ulama of that land to look into the situation I have visited there but visiting there doesn't give you the rights to give a general ruling and it requires someone who knows the land very well visiting them is not enough to give a ruling on it I think the issue of India it has its scholars, it has its people of knowledge Inshallah, I think they can give a more fruitful and beneficial verdict You really liked your trip to India didn't you? There's a video on our channel I think it's called Benefits from my trip to India or something like that and I really encourage a lot of people to watch that inshallah I benefited a lot from that country and there are great scholars in that country It hurts the heart of every Muslim to see the way that the Muslims are being dealt over there it really hurts and other places like China and countries like that it hurts to see what's happening to the Muslims May Allah uplift from the Muslims the pain and the suffering that they're going through Whichever of those who pass away and get killed in that way, may Allah resurrect them with the martyrs May Allah give the Muslims and Islam the honor that once upon a time the Muslims had. Islam always has honor, but may Allah give the Muslims the honor that they had once upon a time The upper hand Okay the next question I have for you is as follows, it's true that Somalis and Pakistanis have origin countries that they can return to, but what about American slash UK reverts? Where can they go? If you look at the hadiths that I mentioned and the evidences that I provided regarding migrating from the lands of the disbelievers, you can sense that the Prophet was talking to a people that were migrating to a land that's not their land The people of Mecca were not the people of Medina, they were foreigners into that country and the Prophet when he had said Hadith Abu Dawood in Tirmidhi narrated and many of the scholars they graded his hadith to be sahih, like Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin in his fifth volume he authenticated it even though some scholars they said it's mursal, like in Sheikh Nasir he discusses it in great details in his Kitab Irwa'il Ghaleela The Prophet here he said every Muslim, so he didn't and you know the word kullu min is the strongest form of Adawatul Umum, it's the strongest form of generalizing something, it's literally saying every Muslim so the Prophet said I am free from every Muslim who lives amongst the non-Muslims, also when the ayah came down Here Allah only gave an exception elderly men who are unable to migrate, women who cannot migrate and children who cannot migrate These are the ones who Allah SWT will forgive so so the Prophet didn't or even the ayah didn't give the reverts an exception he gave the ruling for every one of them he said that came to the Prophet hadith you can find it mentions it in his Sunan that the Prophet the Prophet gave him pledge of allegiance Jalil came to the Prophet and he said to the Prophet open your palm or messenger of Allah so I can give you pledge of allegiance the Prophet gave him a condition the Prophet gave him a condition this was what the pledge of allegiance was based on which is you depart from the disbelievers so this is the condition that the Prophet was based upon his pledge of allegiance so there is no separating reverts from the actual Muslims by the way Muslims are brothers and their lands are one and that's how it should be and I mentioned there are many Muslim countries that the person can go to Bangladesh, Bahrain, Brunei he can go to Djibouti it's actually a hot country but it's open you can go there Egypt you can go to, Jordan you can go Kuwait you can go, Maldives you can go Malaysia you can go if you want to, Mauritania you can go Morocco you can go Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan Qatar you can go for example Saudi Arabia you can go, Somalia, Sudan Tunisia, Turkey United Arab Emirates for example and many many other Muslim countries Gambia which is a very good example there are many other African countries that you could go to and you could stay there you could be it doesn't have to just be the Middle East that you look at as a Muslim country there are many other Muslim countries that you could live and you could go to and as they say if there is a will there is a way so if you have the will and the drive and you really want to you'll find a way inshallah okay inshallah and of course add on to that lots of dua and ask Allah to make it easy for you no doubt it will be made easy for you the next question I have for you is if my Muslim country of origin is heavily upon bid'ah and nearly bans the da'wah to Salafiyah whilst in the Western country I live in I can attend the Salafi circles of knowledge what should I do? the issue of innovators is lesser than the land of the disbelievers it's not the same as staying in the land of the disbelievers kufr is worse than bid'ah generally speaking kufr is worse than bid'ah so where you can't practice your religion the levels are looked at so for example if you're in a land where it's the land of the kuffar and you're a Muslim and kufr against tawheed to migrate becomes higher and if you're in a land where you can't practice the sunnah because bid'ah has been used against you and bid'ah has spread and also migration the same the same applies with the land where there is fisq and ma'asi and you can't do ta'a and obedience of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala it's not innovation but they're preventing you from your lihya they're preventing you from ta'at you should migrate from that place and go where you can practice your religion remember when we say religion we mean the true meaning of al-islam salafiyyah is nothing except al-islam as-safi it's the pure islam the islam that nabi allah muhammad was upon the islam that abu bakr and umar and uthman and ali were upon, the islam that the sahabas were upon, salafiyyah is not a group as some people may think, salafiyyah is just following islam before qadariyya and the jahmiya and the mu'tazila and the masha'ira and these groups before they came, what was islam at the time of the prophet, that's salafiyyah, that's it so you look for a place where you can practice that islam ok let's move on to the next topic so you mentioned in the ayah about hijra that there is an exception for those who are weak and they don't have the ability to migrate and that's kind of where we took the conversation in our kind of like series on the hot seat we spoke about people who are stuck in a western country what should they do now? how can they correct the society around them? this really focused on things like should we go from the top down and try and change the government or should we build from the bottom up? so let's give the viewers a reminder of the kind of things that we discussed on that podcast the question i want to answer today is what should these people do? how can they rectify the society in the non-muslim land Ibn Jarir says that Allah does not change a situation of a people except when they change their own actions let's be honest, let's stick to the real world, the 21st century in the west why don't we influence the government whilst not compromising on our religion but influence the government to bring rules and laws and regulations that make it easy for the muslims to practice their deen, isn't that surely the way forward? no Shahid, that's really not the way forward for the muslims to start from the top and come down is not the right way, it's not the prophetic way by the way Quraysh presented to Nabiullah Muhammad power they presented everything to him, they said here it is it's all yours, we will listen to you the prophet could have said, I'll go to the top and I'll get everything corrected I'm saying why can't we just lobby the government just show them that we are a minority that has a big voice in the UK and when we come together Shahid that's what I'm saying, when you strengthen your community, you would tend to get a voice an agreement amongst the community you have a community that's united that's when you're in the masjid and you're teaching, you bring the people together we will work towards something, our community have lost their religion our community are divided amongst themselves, Allah told us in the Quran Firaun was only placed upon the people because of their own actions ok, you're saying that the leader will come from the people that you correct on the ground in a non-muslim society, the leader does not come from the muslims so who's going to lobby when we choose the person, who's going to represent us as muslims you can't give me a response to that, Shahid in Islam, look at from the time of the prophet until till Sheikh Abdulaziz Mubaz carry on, all the ulama, even till now, look at it the people who took the people out of azamat, calamities and problems, were not individuals who are nothing ulama took the people out the prophet was the first one and then there were ulama after that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali sahabat Rasulullah these people who are activists now, who are running around trying to say that we need to remove the problems from the ummah they are taking it upon themselves to respond to the doubts the orientalists trying to put themselves out there to defend the religion they are not ulama, and they are a harm to the community and a problem to the community ulama are who ulama are the people who've inherited the message of Nabi Muhammad, we do know the wakil in the west better than the scholars, there is no denying, I don't think any sane person would deny that we do know the wakil better than, I know UK better than Sheikh Salah Al-Fawzad that doesn't give me the rights to give fatwa in the religion, I've only got one portion, he has the ilm, I have not got knowledge, by the way when I say ulama, a lot of people are just gonna think, oh he's referring to the Saudi scholars, of course they are part of the scholars I'm referring to, but they are not only the scholars they are scholars around the world a'alim is a person, first condition is that he has the Qur'an and the sunnah is protesting from the means, is protesting in a non-Muslim country, is it from the means that are permissible for us to undertake to try and impact some kind of change, so the scholars they gave a ruling, they said it's not allowed it's not permissible, they got it from the Qur'an and the sunnah there is in it things that are in opposition to the Qur'an and the sunnah and there are harm and problems that come from the mudaharat using a protest to overthrow a non-Muslim government in a non-Muslim country, do you mean harm that is connected to the protest in and of itself in and of itself it goes against, especially da'wah to Nabi our prophet Muhammad his da'wah stood upon about starting from the people and making your way up these are ways that people change, the ibadah is not connected to protesting in and of itself, the ibadah is connected to making better laws for the Muslims in the UK this is just a means, just like me driving to the masjid that's not an ibadah within itself, it's just a means to get to the masjid this last final reason of being of there being harm shara'i harms, it's high safety you think at the beginning, ok I've got this under control, we've got people, you can't promise, because people are more than you and you don't have soldiers to pin the people down and take them to the corner and drag them out of the masjid, you don't have that, it's all assumption the truth of the matter is our honour is going to come once we all obey Allah our honour will come through when we take the prophetic method so as you can see, we spoke about the issue of lobbying governments, trying to get politically active, I think we broke down the, or rather you broke down the issue of protesting in Islam, comprehensively to the point where I'm not sure I've seen that in the English language before or since, I think we spent from memory about 45 minutes on the issue of protesting alone, so I really encourage people who want to understand these kind of issues more, they can refer to the entire episode what can you remember from that episode, I know it was a while ago, but do you have any thoughts that you'd like to share there was a lot of things we discussed, right we broke down the types of mudaharat, what purposes that the person can do it for, and we said the strongest argument to say that the mudaharat is not allowed was mainly the things that it's going to lead to, the things that are connected with the mudaharat that you cannot detach it from, the harm and the problems, and we know in our religion there's a qaeda which is ... ... ... repelling the harm takes precedence over bringing any good so before we think about bringing about good, we first of all have to look at what is the harm that might be in doing this action, if we know there's going to be harm in it the good that we're trying to bring about, we pause that, because the harm is what we need to push away that's very important, it's a qaeda ... ... ... I think I remember what stuck out for me from that episode is when we talked about how to fix a society, do we go from the top down or the bottom up, and I know a lot of people logically think that if we can just change these few individuals at the top our lives would become so much easier but you really went into the issue and you showed that the prophetic method is actually to go from the ground up, and secondly even logically speaking, if you manage to change the people, the governments will automatically change themselves because they are in essence swaying left and right depending on what the people believe, the only reason that LGBTQ rules came in from the government is because they saw the people, they want this, they accepted this, the second thing is that no matter what the government pushes from the top, if you've correctly fixed the people at the bottom and you taught their deen, it's not going to affect them, they can put down whatever they want from the top and people can easily look at that and say this is not for my deen, this is not my deen ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... know what I'm actually contributing towards the problem that the ummah are suffering from you know I have to put my hand up and say you know what you know I need to fix myself, my children, my family وَأَهْلِكُمْ نَارًا and I need to rectify myself number one and then my children's situation you know even in the ayah Allah says ظَهَرَ الْفَسَادُ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِ الْنَّسْ the calamities and the hardship that you see on this earth is happening because of what Allah says in another ayah وَمَا أَصَابَكُم مِّن مُصِيبَةِ فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ وَيَحْفَعَ عَنْ كَتِيرٍ everything is you yourself for you the problems and the calamities that you see is because of you is because of your situation and so you know when I mentioned the ayah where Allah Ta'ala mentions اِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا الْعِجْلَ سَيَنَالُهُمْ غَضَبٌ مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ وَذِلَّةٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَكَذَلِكَ نَجِزِ الْمُفْتَرِينَ this ayah Allah Ta'ala the last part of the ayah is what I want which is Allah mentions وَكَذَلِكَ and like that we destroy the مُفْتَرِينَ those who lie about our religion ابن كثير رحمه الله mentions in his tafsir that this is referring to the innovators okay because the ayah Allah mentions those who've taken عِجْل which was they took the cow when Nabila and Musa left Musa went to طور السيناء and then they came and they made a cow and they started worshipping that cow they innovated after Nabila and Musa left and then Allah mentioned in the verse that Allah placed upon them humility and Allah Ta'ala's wrath descended on them and Allah was angry with them in the ending of the ayah Allah says وَكَذَلِكَ and like that we deal with those who lie about our religion because those people what did they do they lied about the religion of Nabila and Musa ابن كثير رحمه الله mentions this is for the innovators who innovated the religion who add things to the deen and then he brings a statement of Sufyan al-Tawri رحمه الله that every single innovator is humiliated this is referring to so what I mean is if we come with Tawheed and we come with Sunnah and we come with Ta'a those three التوحيد and السنة and Ta'a then we hope from Allah سبحانه وتعالى to bring about good and ratification of our situation that's how it should be working but and us sitting back pointing our fingers at other people and other leaders and other governments and yeah and he's saying it's because of them everyone's playing their role you are part of a problem you are part of the problem the leader is also part of the problem the Hanis everyone everyone so he points at us and says it's you guys I can't judge the religion of Allah because of you guys and we say no it's because of you we keep pointing fingers at each other everyone should really focus on their self that's that's that's how it is okay let's move on to the questions the first question I have is it's obviously just to give some context to the question we did speak about politics and lobbying and influencing governments in that podcast and the question is I wonder whether Sheikh's opinion on the hadith one of the Sheikh's opinion is on the hadith the greatest jihad is a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler especially when he is encouraging Muslims to forget politics and focus on themselves first of all the hadith that you mentioned that afzalul jihadi kalimatul haqqil inda sultanin jair and Ibaad bin Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah narrated an Ahmad bin Hadith Abu Sa'id al-Qudri the hadith is sahih but we have to understand the meaning of the hadith the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam he said afzalul jihadi other wordings have come the greatest meaning afzal is a superlative meaning the greatest form of jihad is kalimatul haqqil it's a statement of truth inda sultanin jair in the presence of a tyrannical leader in the presence of a tyrant leader you are in the presence of a an individual taghi who exceeded his limits who is killing and spilling the bloods of the Muslims what do you do in that situation you're right in front of him if you speak to him and you remind him of Allah and you tell him to fix up and he gets you in prison or he kills you then what you fall under is under this hadith that we just mentioned you are a person who is a mujahid not only that your level of jihad is high on the highest level you have to do in his presence now if he or if he's right in front of you and you do it to him and there are other people as well it's not a problem and even if there are other people sitting there yeah and the leaders right in front of you okay advise him in front of the people it's no issue no problem as long as he's there okay the reason for that is because he can defend himself and you're reaching a goal by advising him yeah well the Salafi used to do this rahimahullah they didn't care who was around they would advise him al imam al muslim rahimahullah he says hadathana abu bakr ibn abu shaybah hadathana waki'a ibn jarrah al ru'as ya'n sufyanin ha'an he does tahweel of the sanad hadathana muhammad ibn muthanna qala hadathana muhammad ibn ja'afarin qala hadathana shu'bat abu bastam al ataqi kilahum a'an qayth ibn muslimin a'an tariq ibn shihab and the hadith is abu bakrin qala awalu man bada'a bil khutbat yawma al a'idi qabla al salati marwan fa qama ilayha rajulun fa qala al salatu qabla al khutbati fa qala qad turika ma hunalik fa qala abu sa'id al khudri amma hadha faqad ghada ma alayhi sam'i'tu rasulallahi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam yaqulu man ra'a minkum munkaran fal yuwayyidu biyadi fa in lam yastat'i fa bi lisani fa in lam yastat'i fa bi qalbi wa dhalika ad'aafun iman Imam Muslim narrated this that marwan ibn hakam what he did was he changed the Eid which one comes first the khutbah or the Salah the khutbah Salah comes first and then khutbah is done after he put the khutbah before the Salah and so a man stood up and he reminded him and he said that's not the Sunnah the Sunnah is to pray the Salah first and then the khutbah comes after but he advised him in public abu sa'id al khudri said radiallahu ta'ala adhu that this man what he did is what I heard the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam mentioned in hadith ma ra'a minkum munkaran fal yuwayyidu biyadi fa in lam yastat'i fa bi lisani fa in lam yastat'i fa bi qalbi wa dhalika ad'aafun iman whoever from amongst you sees evil should try to change it with his hand and if he's not able to he should change it with his tongue and if he's not able to you should hate it in his heart and that's the lowest form of Iman this man saw the the leader doing a munkar by innovating and he advised him and abu sa'id al khudri used this hadith so this hadith ma ra'a minkum munkaran fal yuwayyidu biyadi is not in the absence of the leader but it's in the presence of the leader this is fine there's nothing wrong with it also the hadith Bukhari also narrated from his teacher again Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah who narrated from Abdillah ibn Idris and Husayn and Umarah ibn Ru'aybah he said ra'a Bishr ibn Marwan ala al-manbari Umarah ibn Ru'aybah he saw Bishr ibn Marwan on the pulpit rafi'an yadih he raised his hands doing this and then he said to him Umarah ibn Ru'aybah said to him qabbaha allahu hatayni al yadayni may Allah destroy your two hands laqad ra'aytu rasool Allahi sallallahu alayhi wa sallama I saw the Prophet I saw the Prophet do this now he gave him his point in the presence of the leader this is different from a person who's politically engaged or in politics you came in front of a leader you got this opportunity say what you want to say to him you mentioned on the podcast I think I asked you what if you're on a flight and Boris Johnson was sitting next to you and you said I would advise about Islam, of course, but to make your entire da'wah and your entire goal and your objective about just influencing and getting involved in politics, that's a problem.

Also what needs to be known is that the person who's advising the leader must be a person who has the ahliyya and he has the knowledge to advise the leader because when you're rectifying a problem you have to have knowledge of what you're rectifying, whether even, not even just the leader, even another person, if you're going to stop them from something bad, you need to know that first of all it's munkar in the religion or you'll be speaking about a matter in the religion you have no knowledge of. Yeah, and we actually went through, I believe it was on that podcast, the conditions of a scholar and what makes a scholar. Okay, the next question I have, and I'm going to read this question as it came.

No, but I don't want people to understand that if you want to advise the leader you have to be a scholar. Oh sorry, you're right, you're right. In no way, shape, or form.

I'm just saying make sure when you're advising, any Muslim that you're advising, whether it be a non-Muslim or whether it be a leader or an army, like a general person, you have to have knowledge of that thing that you're going to advise them on. That's just my point, just that particular issue that you're going to talk about, have knowledge of it. Don't be a person who has no knowledge, you're just talking because an opportunity like that where you get the leader, where you can personally advise him, it doesn't happen every day.

And at that moment you really want to speak from the mishkatul kitabi or sunnah, you want to get it from the Quran and the sunnah, you just want to take the gold and the gems from the Quran and sunnah to advise them. That's what you want to do. And guess what that goes back to? It goes back to teaching the religion, teaching the people the religion at the bottom.

Correct. Okay, the next question is, in the country I live, the most popular political parties are the far right. They explicitly state that they want to ban all religious signs, for example the hijab, from all workplaces.

They have already banned the niqab from all public spaces a few years ago. They also want to change the curriculum for the religious schools, stop financial aid for religious institutes from foreign countries, stop ritual slaughtering of animals without drug use, and much, much more. But you are telling me not to engage in politics at all and just basically ignore it.

Allah mentions in the Quran, He says, يَا أَيُّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا بِطَانَةً مِنْ دُونِكُمْ لَا يَأْلُونَكُمْ خَبَالًا وَدُونَ مَعَنِتُمْ قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاءُ مِنْ أَفْوَاءٍ وَمَا تُقْفِي صُدُورُ أَكْبَرٍ And Allah is telling us, the enemies of Islam, what they have in their hearts is so treacherous. What they are now saying on their tongues is just a little bit compared to what they're really holding in their hearts. The animosity and the hate they have for you in their hearts is more than what they even are saying to us.

Allah Ta'ala, He tells us the solution for it. How can we, people hate us that much, who are saying to us, now they're clearly saying it to us. They're treating us in the way that they're treating us.

Allah says, بَلَا إِن تَصْبِرُوا وَتَتَّقُوا لَا يَضُرُّكُمْ كَيِّدُهُمْ شَيْئًا Allah Ta'ala gives us two qualities that we need to come with. He says, if you come with patience and piety, their plotting and their plannings, and the evil doings that they come with, it won't harm you. And I mentioned hadith Abu Dawood in his Sunan, where the Prophet ﷺ said, إِذَا تَبَيَعْتُمْ بِالْعِنَةِ وَأَخَذْتُمْ أَذْنَابَ الْبَقَرِ وَرَضِيْتُمْ بِالزَّرْعِ وَتَرَكْتُمُ الْجِهَادَةِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ ذُلَّا لَا يَنْزِعُ حَتَّى تَرْجِعُ إِلَى الدِّينُكُمْ We have to go back to our religion.

If we want Allah Ta'ala to uplift from us humiliation and hardship, we have to. The hadith—the Prophet ﷺ, and Bukhari and Muslim both narrate the hadith—that the Prophet ﷺ said: مَا نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْهُ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ، وَمَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِهِ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ، فَإِنَّمَا أَهْلَكَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ كَثْرَةُ مَسَائِلِهِمْ وَاخْتِلَافُهُمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ

The previous nations were destroyed. Why? The hadith mentions to us: فَإِنَّمَا أَهْلَكَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ — those who came before you were destroyed. Why? كَثْرَةُ مَسَائِلِهِمْ — they asked too many questions. And them asking too many questions was their way of wanting to go against the religion. وَاخْتِلَافُهُمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ — you know how people ask you questions: "Is it halal?" "What's your evidence?" "Provide evidence." Their reason for that is not to really go with the Qur'an or the Sunnah. They just want to find an inconsistency in your argument. You might not be the strongest person to relay this point, but they know what you're saying is right. You see? But they're just trying to look for, "What's the evidence?" Exactly. "You can't prove it, so leave me alone."

For example, I remember, a brother advised another brother. He said, "Don't drink khamr." He said, "What's your evidence?" Of course, his brother doesn't know the Qur'an, but he knows khamr is haram. And so does the other brother as well. Exactly, and he knows that khamr is haram. So he goes to him, "Exactly. So don't talk to me."

This is كَثْرَةُ مَسَائِلِهِمْ — asking too many questions in order to get out of it. Some scholars have said it has another meaning: وَاخْتِلَافُهُمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ — opposing their prophets. So Allah destroys a nation because of their opposing their prophets and going against what the prophet came with. And I mentioned before the ayah: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا الْعِجْلَ سَيَنَالُهُمْ غَضَبٌ مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ وَذِلَّةٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُفْتَرِينَ

Qawl Ibn Kathir رحمه الله — what he said about it: This refers to كُلُّ مَنِ افْتَرَى بِدْعَةً — anyone who initiates an innovation: فَإِنَّ الذُّلَّ الْبِدْعَةِ وَمُغَالَفَةِ الرِّسَالَةِ مُتَّصِلَةٌ مِنْ قَلْبِهِ إِلَى كَتِفِهِ And قال سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ: كُلُّ صَاحِبِ بِدْعَةٍ ذَلِيلٌ — every individual who innovates in the religion is humiliated. So Allah is going to humiliate them.

And there are two verses in the Qur'an that really drive this particular point for us to really understand. One is mentioned in Surah Saba:

لَقَدْ كَانَ لِسَبَإٍ فِي مَسْكَنِهِمْ آيَةٌ ۖ جَنَّتَانِ عَنْ يَمِينٍ وَشِمَالٍ ۖ كُلُوا مِن رِّزْقِ رَبِّكُمْ وَاشْكُرُوا لَهُ ۚ بَلْدَةٌ طَيِّبَةٌ وَرَبٌّ غَفُورٌ فَأَعْرَضُوا فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَيْلَ الْعَرِمِ وَبَدَّلْنَاهُم بِجَنَّتَيْهِمْ جَنَّتَيْنِ ذَوَاتَيْ أُكُلٍ خَمْطٍ وَأَثْلٍ وَشَيْءٍ مِّن سِدْرٍ قَلِيلٍ ذَٰلِكَ جَزَيْنَاهُم بِمَا كَفَرُوا ۖ وَهَلْ نُجَازِي إِلَّا الْكَفُورَ

And then Allah says:

وَجَعَلْنَا بَيْنَهُم وَبَيْنَ الْقُرَى الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا قُرًى ظَاهِرَةً وَقَدَّرْنَا فِيهَا السَّيْرَ ۖ سِيرُوا فِيهَا لَيَالِيَ وَأَيَّامًا آمِنِينَ فَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا بَاعِدْ بَيْنَ أَسْفَارِنَا وَظَلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ فَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَحَادِيثَ وَمَزَّقْنَاهُمْ كُلَّ مُمَزَّقٍ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّكُلِّ صَبَّارٍ شَكُورٍ

Allah mentions the story of the people of Saba'. Allah says they had a garden on their right and a garden on their left. Allah Ta'ala said to them: وَرَبٌّ غَفُورٌ — you have a Lord that's forgiving. You eat, enjoy yourselves. Allah says: فَأَعْرَضُوا — they turned away. فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَيْلَ الْعَرِمِ — Allah Ta'ala sent worms to destroy their gardens and everything. And Allah destroyed everything they had.

Even Allah mentions سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى: They used to travel from one village to another village. They could see the other village. They were so close to everything—it's just a ni'mah. They didn't have the struggle of traveling. Allah made that. But then, what did they do?

 They turned away. فَأَعْرَضُوا فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَيِّدَ الْعَارِمِ فَأَعْرَضُوا. They turned away from Allah. They turned away from the religion of Allah. And that's when Allah Ta'ala sent upon them what? The destruction. And Allah mentions: وَهَلْ نُجَازِي إِلَّا الْقَفُورِ — is there any other way that we should deal with those who are transgressive? Those who don't show Allah Ta'ala gratitude, and they're not thankful. Allah Ta'ala mentions in the ayah: فَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا بَعْدَ بَيْنَ أَسْفَارِنَا وَظَلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ فَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَحَدِيثًا — we made them a parable, something people can take a lesson from. وَمَزَّقْنَاهُمْ — Allah said we ripped them apart. كُلَّ مُمَزَّقٍ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَةٍ — this is a lesson. فَهُوَ لَآيَةٌ لِكُلِّ صَبَّارٍ شَكُورٍ — everybody who has these two qualities: patience and gratitude. They didn't have that. They were not patient upon the obedience of Allah — no, they were not. They didn’t show gratitude to Allah for the blessings that He gave them.

The second story is: سَنَسِمُهُ عَلَى الْخُرْطُومِ إِنَّا بَلَوْنَاهُمْ كَمَا بَلَوْنَا أَصْحَابَ الْجَنَّةِ إِذْ أَقْسَمُوا لَيَسْرِمُنَّهَا مُصْبِحِينَ وَلَا يَسْتَثْنُونَ فَطَافَ عَلَيْهَا طَائِفٌ مِّن رَّبِّكَ وَهُمْ نَائِمُونَ فَأَصْبَحَتْ كَالصَّرِيمِ فَتَنَادَوْا مُصْبِحِينَ أَنِ اغْدُوا عَلَى حَرْثِكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَارِمِينَ فَانطَلَقُوا وَهُمْ يَتَخَافَتُونَ أَلَّا يَدْخُلَنَّهَا الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِّسْكِينٌ وَغَدَوْا عَلَى حَرْدٍ قَادِرِينَ فَلَمَّا رَأَوْهَا قَالُوا إِنَّا لَضَالُّونَ بَلْ نَحْنُ مَحْرُومُونَ. Allah speaks about a story of a father who had a garden. This father, they said that he used to make sure that this garden he had — he used to give to the poor and the needy, he would take care of them. He used to follow the ayah: وَآتُوا حَقَّهُ يَوْمَ حَصَادِهِ — give from your gardens the rights that are upon it. So he used to give from his garden, he used to take care of the needy. Rather, what he used to do is that he used to open his garden for the people in need and he would say to them: “Come, choose what you want from it — whatever vegetations or fruits that you like, come, it’s all yours.” And so they would come, and they would take what they want and they would leave. That’s the type of father he was. That’s the type of person he was.

But when he passed away, his children took over the garden. And when they took over and became in charge of it, they said: أَلَّا يَدْخُلَنَّهَا الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِّسْكِينٌ — today our father was a generous man, he was too much, he was OTT, over the top. We're not going to be like our father. We're going to make sure that we bring rules and regulations. We need to be reasonable, we need to think about the family properties, blah blah blah — they made those decisions. So what did they do? They made sure, so at night time they made that decision, and they woke up in the morning. When they woke up in the morning, they found: فَلَمَّا رَأَوْهَا قَالُوا إِنَّا لَضَالُّونَ — they woke up in the morning, وَغَدَوْا عَلَى حَرْدٍ قَادِرِينَ — everything. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, when they woke up in the morning, they were like: “We are the ones who are misguided, not the مساكين.” And then: بَلْ نَحْنُ مَحْرُومُونَ. قَالَ أَوْسَطُهُمْ أَلَمْ أَقُل لَّكُمْ لَوْلَا تُسَبِّحُونَ — the middle one said to them: “Did I not tell you guys to exalt Allah?” قَالُوا سُبْحَانَ رَبِّنَا إِنَّا كُنَّا ظَالِمِينَ. فَأَقْبَلَ بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ يَتَلَاوَمُونَ — they turned to one another, blaming one another: “It was your fault, you did this.” قَالُوا يَا وَيْلَنَا إِنَّا كُنَّا طَاغِينَ عَسَىٰ رَبُّنَا أَن يُبْدِلَنَا خَيْرًا مِّنْهَا إِنَّا إِلَىٰ رَبِّنَا رَاغِبُونَ. Allah says: كَذَٰلِكَ الْعَذَابُ — the punishment of Allah is like that. وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَكْبَرُ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ — but the punishment of the hereafter is worse.

Allah is going to make us leaders — Muslims. Wallahi, Allah is going to put us in charge of this world. Allah is going to put us in charge of this world. The other day, I was really thinking about this issue very deeply and I was like: Subhanallah, you know, when you look at the world today — where Muslims are and where the West is — let's be honest: the West has reached a high level. I'm not praising them to glorify them. I'm just trying to say this is the reality. I mean: لا تقولوا للمنافق سيدا فإنه وإن يَكُ سيدا فقد أسخطتم ربكم — I'm not saying a disbeliever is a Sayyid, a master, but I just asked myself: how are we ever going to reach that level? And you know what hit my heart as I was thinking? Wallahi, to Allah it's nothing — that Allah makes America a force for Muslims, that they turn to Islam. Allah can make them Muslims and they become an Islamic government. We don't even need to fight them. They come into Islam and they become Muslims. Allah turns them to Islam. So we don't know how Allah is going to do things — and it's happened in the past, of course. Countries like Indonesia and others — Muslims opened them without any weapons, without anything. So, indeed, Allah Ta'ala says: وَمَا كَانَ عَطَاءُ رَبِّكَ مَحْظُورًا — Allah's treasures and what He has in store is beyond limits. وَمَا يَعْلَمُ جُنُودَ رَبِّكَ إِلَّا هُوَ — no one knows Allah's armies and the way that things are going to be. We don't know. Our knowledge is very little. Allah Ta'ala knows everything.

We just have to come with our part, which is:

"وَجَعَلْنَا مِنْهُمْ أَئِمَّةً يَهْدُونَ بِأَمْرِنَا لَمَّا صَبَرُوا وَكَانُوا بِآيَاتِنَا يُوقِنُونَ" (And We made from among them leaders guiding by Our command when they were patient and [when] they were certain of Our signs.)

Patience, certainty, gratitude, Taqwa (تقوى – God-consciousness), Tawheed (توحيد – pure monotheism), the Sunnah (سنة – way of the Prophet ﷺ), and obedience (طاعة – Taʿa): when we come with those things, Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā (سبحانه وتعالى – Glorified and Exalted is He), He will not forsake us. Allah Taʿālā (تعالى – the Most High) will not forsake us. Allah said:

"وَمَا رَبُّكَ بِظَلَّامٍ لِلْعَبِيدِ" (And your Lord is not ever unjust to the slaves.)

And you know, just to add on to that, regarding the question at the end where someone said, “You're telling me to basically ignore it”—of course, that’s not what you're saying. You’re saying: do it the prophetic method though—do it from the ground up and teach the people their religion.

We covered that topic extensively in the main episode. Also, people of knowledge should take on this responsibility. "كُلَّ مَنْ هَبَّ وَدَبّ، زَيْدٌ وَبَكْرٌ وَعَمْرٌ" — (Every random person: Zayd, Bakr, and ʿAmr) — shouldn’t be involved. We don’t want:

"ثُمَّ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ عُوَيْرٌ وَكُسَيْرٌ وَالثَّالِثُ لَيْسَ فِيهِ خَيْرٌ" (Then comes after that ‘ʿUwayr’, ‘Kusayr’, and a third in whom there is no good.)

We don’t want that. We want people of knowledge — people who are grounded, who look at ʿAwāqib al-Umūr (عواقب الأمور – consequences of matters), who understand Maṣāliḥ wa Mafāsid (مصالح ومفاسد – benefits and harms), people who are senior and firmly grounded in knowledge.

That’s what Allah says in the verse:

"وَإِذَا جَاءَهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِّنَ الْأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُوا بِهِ وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَىٰ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ ۗ وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا" (And when there comes to them a matter concerning [public] security or fear, they broadcast it. But if they had referred it back to the Messenger and to those of authority among them, then the ones who can draw correct conclusions from it would have known [the matter]. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Satan, except for a few.)

Allah Subḥānahu wa Taʿālā mentions that if they were to take these matters back—to whom? To Allah, to the Messenger ﷺ, and to those in authority among them.

"أُولِي الْأَمْرِ" (ʾUlī al-Amr – those in authority) here, according to Imām al-Qurṭubī (الإمام القرطبي), the Mufassir (مفسر – exegete), means: "هُمْ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ وَالْفِقْه" — (They are the people of knowledge and jurisprudence), and he transmitted that from al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Qatādah, and others.

So it doesn’t matter what country that person is from. It doesn’t matter their ethnicity or background. People of knowledge need to take this responsibility. If you're politically engaged, running around without knowledge, you’re going to be part of the problem.

We’ve seen that — we’ve seen so many people who think, “You know what, let’s be frank, who’s the mayor of London?” Right? He’s a Muslim guy — he claims to be Muslim, okay. This individual — the crime rate in the UK has gone through the roof. That’s a fact. Since the time he came into power, crime in London has been unprecedented compared to the past.

What’s he doing with the COVID-19 situation? Wallāhi (والله – by Allah), you’d hope a non-Muslim would stay in that position instead, because of what’s happening to our youngsters and our youth. Do you understand my point?

So, the point I’m trying to make is: we need ʿUlamāʾ Ahl al-ʿIlm Rabbāniyyūn (علماء أهل العلم الربانيون – scholars, people of deep, nurturing knowledge), truthful individuals — Ṣādiqīn (صادقين – the sincere ones) — people who have no hidden agenda.

ʿUmar raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu (رضي الله عنه – may Allah be pleased with him), he met Nāfiʿ ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥārith in ʿUsfān. ʿUmar had placed him as a governor over the people of Makkah. Then he asked him:

"مَنِ اسْتَعْمَلْتَ عَلَىٰ أَهْلِ الْوَادِي؟" — (Who have you appointed over the people of the valley?)

Nāfiʿ replied: "ابْنُ أَبْزَى" (Ibn Abzā).

ʿUmar said: "وَمَنْ ابْنُ أَبْزَى؟" — (Who is Ibn Abzā?)

He replied: "مَوْلًى مِنْ مَوَالِينَا" — (A freed slave from among our freed slaves.)

ʿUmar said: "اسْتَخْلَفْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ مَوْلًى؟" — (You placed a freed slave in authority over them?)

Nāfiʿ understood the reason behind ʿUmar’s question and responded: "إِنَّهُ قَارِئٌ لِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ، وَعَالِمٌ بِالْفَرَائِضِ" (Indeed, he is a reciter of the Book of Allah, and he is knowledgeable regarding inheritance laws.)

ʿUmar said: "أَمَا إِنَّ نَبِيَّكُمْ ﷺ قَالَ: إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَرْفَعُ بِهَذَا الْكِتَابِ أَقْوَامًا وَيَضَعُ بِهِ آخَرِينَ" (Indeed, your Prophet ﷺ said: Verily, Allah raises people through this Book and debases others by it.)

This ḥadīth was narrated by Imām Muslim from ʿUmar raḍiyallāhu ʿanhu.

So he placed someone in charge not just based on status, but based on knowledge. This is what is being emphasized — that matters should be left to the scholars. Let them discuss among themselves, and they will guide us regarding what to do, where to go, and what to avoid. They will guide us for the benefit of both the worldly life (Dunyā) and the Hereafter (Ākhirah).

Bārakallāhu fīkum (بارك الله فيكم – May Allah bless you all).

That brought us to the end of the first mini-series we did in this Hot Seat season, where we discussed Muslims living in the West. We then moved on to a different topic — one that concerns internal issues within the Ummah. Specifically, we addressed the issue of the Madhhab (مذهب – school of thought).

Let’s give the viewers a quick reminder by playing a short clip from what we discussed in that podcast. We now want to talk about something closer to home — an issue within Islam that is affecting the Muslims — and that is the issue of the Madhhab. A lot of people believe it is a necessity to follow a Madhhab because they have no other choice — they can't go directly to the Qur'an and Sunnah.

The people are of three types:

1. The general masses, who don’t know anything about the religion.
2. The Mutabiʿah (مُتَّبِعَة – followers) — those who are students of knowledge.
3. The scholars.

Taʿaṣṣub (تعصب – fanaticism/partisanship) refers to being blindly fanatical.

 I'm not fanatical about Imam al-Shāfiʿī — I believe he can be right or wrong. Isn't that the whole point? One of the big problems with this issue is that, like you said, it clearly played a role, and we can see that reality shows us this: a lot of people from Somalia choose Imam al-Shāfiʿī, and a lot of people from Pakistan and India choose Abū Ḥanīfah. This is an issue of Dīn (دين – religion), so where we're from should not come into it — it shouldn't play a role.

When the Prophet ﷺ died in the city of Madinah, a Madhhab (مذهب – school of thought) emerged from that city — it’s called Madhhab Ahl al-Ḥijāz (مذهب أهل الحجاز – the school of the people of Ḥijāz), and more specifically Madhhab Ahl al-Madīnah (مذهب أهل المدينة – the school of the people of Madinah). The leader of that was Imam Mālik. Another Madhhab emerged — Madhhab Ahl al-ʿIrāq (مذهب أهل العراق – the school of the people of Iraq), or more specifically Madhhab Ahl al-Kūfah (مذهب أهل الكوفة – the school of the people of Kūfah), the school of the people of Kūfah, led by Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.

Al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad took from both. You're saying Tamadhhub (تمذهب – adherence to a school of thought) and Taqlīd (تقليد – blind following) are one and the same. This is one of the mistakes that many people fall into. They believe Tamadhhub automatically means Taqlīd. Pay attention to that: Tamadhhub means I'm following a Madrasa (مدرسة – educational methodology or school). This Madrasa has been going on for over 1,300 years. Taqlīd means I'm holding on to one individual. The Muqallid (مقلد – the one who blindly follows) — I believe most people fall into this category.

This person you mentioned — there’s no issue with him just asking his Imām. He has to go to someone who has the proper Dīn (دين – religion), someone with taqwā (تقوى – piety), and someone who has knowledge. And part of that knowledge is to not be a blind follower himself.

This concept of the four Madhāhib (مذاهب – schools of thought) — I don't believe that the truth (Ḥaqq – حق) is restricted only to these four Madhāhib. It's not like you have no other option. Allah removed the other Madhāhib — the Sufi and Atharī Madhāhib are gone. Allah refined it so that only these four remain. Isn’t that Allah showing you that the truth is within these four?

No, you're not allowed to use universal evidences (adilla kulliyya – أدلة كلية) to affirm a specific Sharʿī (شرعي – legislative) evidence. How can four great Imāms — greater than you and greater than modern-day scholars like Shaykh al-Albānī or Shaykh Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān — all agree on an error?

This is exactly the reason why Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned, and the whole issue with Ibn Taymiyyah arose. You say you’re following a Madhhab, for example, and you come across a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth (حديث صحيح – authentic narration) in Bukhārī. You agree the ḥadīth is authentic. So, are you now going to leave the Madhhab and follow the ḥadīth?

A layman (ʿĀmmī – عامي) cannot go to the ḥadīth himself and extract rulings from it. So again, his job is to go to an ʿĀlim (عالم – scholar) and do what the scholar says.

The Mutabiʿ (متبع – the one who follows based on evidence) has to take the āyah (آية – verse) and the ḥadīth and support them with the understanding of a great Imām. You can't just say, “This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ, therefore it goes against this Madhhab, and I’m going to follow the authentic ḥadīth.” Who made Bukhārī authentic? Shaykh al-Albānī? These are men — fallible, not infallible. You’re always following men either way. But we’re not just following men — we’re following a science, a framework that has been laid out.

It always comes back to, “My scholar said this, your scholar said that.” No — the default position that many people are getting wrong is that they view the scholar as though he’s infallible from the beginning.

Some people equate Tamadhhub with Taqlīd. But Tamadhhub doesn’t necessarily mean it’s Taqlīd. Tamadhhub can be a stepping stone — and it has been a stepping stone for ijtihād (اجتهاد – independent reasoning) for great scholars of Islam.

Learning a Madhhab is as-hal (أسهل – easier), simpler, and more beneficial. You’ll see the fruits that you reap.

First of all, teach your students — before going through the Madhhab books — that the Madhhab is a means, not the ultimate goal.

So as you can see, we spoke a little bit about the different Madhāhib, and the history behind the development of the Madhāhib.

You divided the people into three different groups, the Muqallid, the Mutabi'a, and the Mujtahid. So the person who doesn't have any knowledge, or the layman, the kind of student of knowledge, and then the scholar who is able to go into the Qur'an and the Sunnah directly. And you explained how each group, or each person that falls in one of those groups should deal with the Madhabs, and they all have different approaches with the Madhab.

Any thoughts? I know it was a while ago, like I said before, but any thoughts that you have from that podcast that you can remember? What I generally say to people is that, when it comes to the Madhabs, and speaking about the Madhabs, and it's discussion revolving around the Madhabs, don't fall into the extreme exaggeration or the extreme negligence. Always be careful. Shaytan will either make you fall into extreme, where you start thinking, I'm a Mujtahid, I can go to the Qur'an and Sunnah myself.

You know what? I will extract rulings from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. By the way, you don't have to be a Mujtahid to go to a Qur'an, so you can read it yourself as a Muslim. But I'm saying, the entire Qur'an, I can extract rulings independently, without the understanding of any scholar before me, is a path of destruction.

And it's an extreme path. What is also another extreme path is the fanaticism that we see, Ta'asub, for people and individuals, that we find people falling into. So don't be a person who goes extreme exaggeration or extreme negligence.

In every matter of the religion, try to look for that middle path, which is always the hardest path. وَكَذَارِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًى Allah made us that middle path, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala. إِنَّ الدِّينَ يُسْرٌ وَلَن يُشَدَّ الدِّينَ أَحَدٌ إِلَّا غَلَابَهُ فَسَدِّدُوا وَقَارِبُوا The religion is not extreme in any way, shape, or form.

The Prophet said, إِيَّاكُمْ وَالْغُلُوَةِ فِي الدِّينِ Stay away from being extreme. Allah says, يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوُ فِي دِينِكُمْ Don't go overboard in your religion, or don't go negligent on your religion. Al-'Alama Muhammad Ameen al-Shanghati on the ayah, يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوُ فِي دِينِكُمْ He says the غلو here means إفراط or تفريط, extreme exaggeration, extreme negligence.

The liberals, we say they're extreme. You see, the خوارج, we say they're extreme. For us as Muslims, both of them are extreme.

The liberals are extremists. We should call them extremists. The خوارج are those who bomb innocent people and kill innocent people.

لَا يَرْقُبُونَ فِي مُؤْمِنٍ إِلَّا وَلَا ذِمَّةٌ Those are also extremists to us. Yeah, many people really just only associate extremism or being extreme with, for example, the خوارج. Exactly, exactly.

And they don't realize that actually there's a middle path and there's two extremes on either end. And I think that kind of balanced approach that came through in the podcast might have surprised some people because often people think that the quote-unquote Salafi approach to the madhhabs is let's get rid of them, there's too much ta'asub, let's just get rid of them totally. We don't need them, let's go straight to the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

But you actually present a very, very balanced approach and I thought that came across very well. I remember one time, subhanAllah, there was a brother that was with me and we were with a sheikh. It's one of the things that touched me really and it humbled me as a person as well.

We were with a sheikh and a brother must have said, O sheikh, why do you propagate Shafi'i madhhab? All the ayahs that talk about veneration of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. So he must have read those verses on the sheikh. And the sheikh, of course, knows those verses.

So the sheikh said to him, what do you want the people to do? He said, go to the Qur'an and Sunnah directly. The sheikh, on the shelf, he picked up Kitab al-Risala al-Imam al-Shafi'i, Riwayat al-Rabi' bin Sulaiman al-Muradi. He gave it to him.

And he said, read it. He couldn't read it. Struggling.

He can't even read. He can't even read. He couldn't read a sentence without doing a grammatical mistake.

And then you say, I can come and speak. I can go straight to the Qur'an, to the Sunnah. He can't even read.

What are you going to read? The words of Imam Shafi'i that you are against. Here is this Kitab al-Risala that he wrote. And it is considered to be the first Kitab in Usool al-Fiqh.

Shafi'i was the first person who wrote in Usool al-Fiqh. With the command of Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi. Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi said to him, to Imam Shafi'i, write a science for the people that need it.

To know how to take the Dalil and the Madlul. The Qur'an and the Sunnah, how to understand it. So he wrote the Kitab al-Risala.

The first Al-Risala is lost. We don't have it. And the new version of the Risala that Shafi'i wrote, the second one, is the one we have.

Which is why I mentioned the Riwayat of Rabi'a ibn Sulaiman al-Muradi narrated from him. Rabi'a ibn Sulaiman al-Muradi is from the students of Shafi'i in Egypt. Ya'qub al-Buwaiti, Ismail ibn Hanmuzani, and Rabi'a ibn Sulaiman al-Muradi.

They are his students over there. So he couldn't read it. And Imam Shafi'i, Abd al-Malik ibn Quraybin, he mentioned al-Asma'i.

He said, I sat down with Shafi'i, and Shafi'i is a Hujjah in the Arabic language. I sat with Shafi'i and I said to him, the language of the people of Hudhayl, I want to check the poetry onto you and I want to write some things from you. Abd al-Malik ibn Quraybin is an imam of the language.

But he corrected his versions of the poetry, and he verified the versions that he has, and if it's right, from Imam al-Shafi'i. What I mean is, Abu Hanifa, the same could be said about him, a great imam in Fiqh. The same could be said about Imam Malik, Imam Dar al-Hijrah, and the same with Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who is an imam in Fiqh and Hadith, an imam in Sunnah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

For you to think to yourself, I can directly go to the Qur'an and Sunnah, ignore these people, they are men, and I'm a man. We say the first part, we accept. But the second, let's discuss it.

Ok, I know like you mentioned at the start, there's general books that you read for all the episodes. For this particular issue of the Madahib, is there any particular books that you read? Again, I always go back to the Qur'an, but generally, because it's related to Ijtihad and Taqlid, it's an issue in Usul al-Fiqh. Usul al-Fiqh is divided into four.

There's a Muqaddimah where the scholars speak about the definition of Fiqh. What does Usul al-Fiqh mean? Usul and Fiqh. Usul and Fiqh, they define it.

What does Usul mean? What does Fiqh mean? And then they go to the second part of Usul al-Fiqh, which is they speak about Ahkam. Ahkam al-Shar'iyyat al-Wad'iyah. Ahkam al-Shar'iyyat al-Taklifiyah.

The scholars, they talk about that. And they divide Ahkam al-Taklifiyah into five. Wajib, Mustahabb, Mandu, Makrooh, Mubah.

Those five. And Al-Wad'iyah, they speak about five as well. Which is Al-Sharj, Al-Sabab, and Al-Mani'a, and Al-Fasid.

They speak about those issues. And then Dalalat al-Alfad, which is Aam, Mutlaq, Muqayyad, Mujmal, Mubayan, and all of that. The last part, they talk about Ta'arudh wal-Tarjih.

How do you reconcile between evidences? In there, they speak about the Mujtahid. Because he's the one who brings the evidences together. Wal-Jam'u al-Wajib wa mata ma amkana illa falina khayli nasqin buyina.

How do you reconcile between the evidences? The Mujtahid, that's his job. The Muqallid, his job is, So in there, there's a Mabhath where they talk about the Mujtahid. Who is a Mujtahid? Shuroot al-Mujtahid.

How long does it take? What can break the Mujtahid? What about if new information comes and you've done Mujtahid before? Issues related to Mujtahid. So, generally, I read it to you. Al-Kawkub al-Sata, which is the Nazm al-Jam'u al-Jawami' by Suki.

I don't look at the Kawkub al-Sata per se, because it's Nazm al-Suyuti, but Jam'u al-Jawami' and Hawashi that are placed on it, I look at it. Sahib al-Maraqis, Kitab Abdullah bin Hajj al-Shankati, I mentioned in Nasr al-Bunud, I look at that a lot. Irshad al-Fuhul by Shawkani, I looked at it a lot on this issue.

I read all of those books. Those particular areas, I focus on them. And then, Also, Ilam by Ibn al-Qayyim, I can't be without it.

Ilam of Ibn al-Qayyim is very, very useful when it comes to these issues. Rahimahullah wa rahmatan wa wasi'ah. So I read all of those, and that's how I came to the podcast.

Okay, let's go into the questions that people had for you then, or they left on the YouTube video. The first one is, How can you say the truth is not restricted to the four Imams, when the Usul of the other Madhahib have not been preserved? What I want to say first of all, is this view is one of the views out there that the late Mutaakhireen al-Usuliyeen are pushed, as al-Muhammad al-Amin al-Shankati mentions. That this is the view of the late Mutaakhireen al-Usuliyeen which is that the Haq is restricted with these four.

And Imam Sahib al-Muraqi says, وَالْمُجْمَعُ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْهِ أَرَبَعَهُ وَقَفُوا غَيْرِهَا الْجَمِيعُ مَنَعَهُ That the Ummah have all agreed upon these four, and anything other than those four are not allowed. That's a very bad view. That's not correct for Sahib al-Muraqi to say something like that.

And the other poet he said, وَجَائِزٌ تَقْلِيدُ غَيْرِ الْأَرَبَعَ لِذِي ظَرُورَةٍ وَفِي هَذَا سَعَةٌ It is permissible for you to blind follow anybody other than these four under the condition it is out of necessity. وَلِذَلِكَ الْعَلَامَةِ محمد علي آدم الإثيوبي مقدمة شرح صحيح المسلم قُرَّةُ عَيْنِ الْمُحْتَاج شرح مقدمة صحيح المسلم حجاج He mentions there Sheikh Muhammad al-Aadim al-Ethiopi He said when he brings those two lines يَوْوَ الْمُجْمَعُ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْهَا أَرْبَعَ وَقَفُوا غَيْرِهَا الْجَمِيعُ وَمَنَعَهُ بِئْسَ مَا قَالَ وَجَائِزٌ تَقْلِيدُ غَيْرِ الْأَرْبَعَ لِذِي ظَرُورَةٍ وَفِي هَذَا سَعَةٌ بِئْسَ مَا قَالَ Which is the truth. And this view, Sahib al-Muraqi transmitted Abu Amr ibn al-Salah the same Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Rajab wrote a book called al-Raju ala man ittaba'a ghayra al-madhahib al-arba'a and then al-Nafrawi al-Sharh al-Risalah said the same.

This is a view we don't accept. Because the last episode when we were speaking about tashabbuhu bil-kuffar we mentioned you're not allowed to use a universal sign to affirm a legislated matter. That's what the person said.

Because this is the one that's preserved so that means that the truth is in this one. No, we don't do that. We don't take something that's happening universally and happening in the world and we say you know because this is happening it means Allah is pleased with it and Allah chose this.

We can't say that. Because what happens universally is not always what happens universally is not always something Allah is pleased with. It is something Allah willed but it's not necessarily something Allah is pleased with.

For example the disbelievers use this argument. Allah mentions in the Quran Allah says They said that the disbelievers the disbelievers are going to say if Allah willed we would not have associated partners with Allah. Our fathers wouldn't have done it as well.

We know in the Quran Allah mentions to us and also told us that Allah is not pleased for His slaves to associate partners with Him. Also they say We would not have worshipped anyone besides Him. We say that is true and Allah did will for this to happen.

Universally He did will it to happen. What is intended from it is evil. Because Allah does mention that everything that's happening is that which He intended.

For the disbelievers to be misguided is something Allah willed not something He's pleased with. Because Allah says If we willed we would have given everybody guidance. Also Allah says If Allah willed they would not have associated partners with Allah.

But they conflated two things which is what? Because it's universally happening it means Allah is pleased with it. We say that no that's not the case. I think the person is coming from maybe the perspective that not the fact that the usool of these four madahib are preserved therefore Allah must be pleased with them.

I think they might be coming from the perspective of if the usool of the other madahib have gone then how can we follow anything else? Like what else do we have? The other madahibs are mentioned as well. They're mentioned in the books they're just not served and created and worked on like these four have been worked on. If you read and of course it's not the same way that it's going to be transmitted because these madhabs have been worked on, served and taken care of.

Like in Sufyan al-Thawri's views are mentioned Abu Thawri's views are mentioned Oza'i's views are mentioned yeah of course it's mentioned. Plus how can you say that the truth is with these four only and everyone outside that the truth is not restricted to them when they themselves would come back from views. I remember Shafi'i for example when he was in Iraq he had a view and a madhab.

When he went to Egypt for example his view changed and his madhab changed and he changed his views because of what came to him. Plus they themselves spoke against blind following each and every one of them without knowing their evidences. For example Ibn al-Qayyim he mentions in his Ilam al-Muqqi'in he says the four imams prohibited and taqlidim to be blind followed وَذَمُّوا مَنْ أَخَذَ أَقْوَالَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ حُجَّةٍ and they rebuked and scolded anyone who took their opinions without proof Ibn Hazmin he said in his Kitab al-Hikam في أصول الأحكام he says وَقَدْ ذَكَرْنَا أَنَّ مَالِكَنُ أَبَى حَنِيفَةُ وَالشَّافِعِيَةَ لَمْ يُقَلِّدُوا وَلَا أَجَازُوا لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يُقَلِّدَهُمْ وَلَا أَنْ يُقَلِّدَ غَيْرَهُمْ Ahmad never allowed anyone to blind follow him he also mentions another view in his Kitab also Ibn al-Qayyim Ibn Abdul-Bara in his Kitab al-Intiqa' if you go to it there is a lot of he mentions in his Jami' bayan al-ilm wa fadli he mentions many views rather Shafi'i transmitted a view Shafi'i transmitted an Ijma' that he said أَجْمَعَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَىٰ أَنَّ مَنْ اِسْتَبَانَتْ لَهُ سُنَّةٌ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَىٰهُ عَلَىٰ سَلَامًا لَمْ يَكُلُّهُ أَنْ يَدَعَ عَلَيْهُ قَوْلِ أَحَدٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ that the Muslims are unanimously in agreement whoever the Sunnah becomes clear to them it is not permissible for them to leave it for the statement of any individual okay next question I have on this particular podcast is if everyone is following the Sunnah then why is there a difference in the way to pray Salah? how do these differences arise between the four Madahib if they are all following the Sunnah? if everybody is following the Sunnah then why is there a difference in the way to pray Salah? how do these differences arise between the four Madahib if they are all following the Sunnah? I would encourage this person to read the Kitab رَفْعُ الْمَلَامَ عَنْ أَيْمَةِ الْأَعْلَامِ by Ibn Taymiyyah removing the blame from the worthy scholars this book Ibn Taymiyyah Ibn Taymiyyah in this book Ibn Taymiyyah speaks about this particular question you asked, why are the scholars but I'll just mention four for example reasons why it would happen, the first reason is عَدَمُ الْبُلُوغِ الدَّلِيلِ وَثُوبُوتِهِ وَفَهْمِهِ the evidence hasn't actually reached this person okay and they haven't understood it in that way, for example Ibn Thuaybin he said this person hasn't got the evidence with them Ibn Thuaybin he mentions جَاءَتِ الْجَدَّةُ إِلَىٰ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّقِ a grandmother came to Abu Bakr رضي الله تعالى عنه when she came to him she was asking about her ميراثة تَسْأَلُوهُ مِيرَاثَهَا she was saying I want my inheritance فَقَالَ لَهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَبُو بَكَرٍ responded and he said to her مَا لَكَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ شَيْءٌ in the book of Allah you have nothing in the book of Allah سبحانه وتعالى there is nothing for you وَمَا عَلِيمْتُ لَكَ فِي سُنَّةٍ and in the sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم I have no nothing for you okay فَرْجِعِي go back, come to me tomorrow حَتَّى أَسْأَلَ النَّاسِ I'll ask around if somebody has evidence that I don't have فَسَأَلَ النَّاسِ he went and he asked the people فَقَالَ الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ الشُعْبَةِ مُغِيرَةُ بْنُ الشُعْبَةِ I was present when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم أَعْطَاهَا السُّدُس when he gave one-sixth to the grandmother فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكَرٍ أَلْمَعَكَ غَيْرُكَ do you have anyone else that saw this and was there with you he said محمد بن مسلمة الأنصاري sorry محمد بن مسلمة الأنصاري was sitting there and he stood up and he said I was there exactly what مُغِيرَةُ بْنُ الشُعْبَةِ said what did Abu Bakr then do, he gave it to him this shows you, tell me they narrated this in Surah Abu Dawood narrated Ibn Majah all of them من طريقة بن شهاب الزهري from Uthman Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Uthu'ayb Ibn Uthu'ayb is Qabisat Ibn Uthu'ayb here you see the Imam الصحابي الجليل العالم أبو بكر الصديق رضي الله تعالى عنه the most knowledgeable man in this Ummah after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't have the evidence in this issue so of course he's going to differ with them on this issue if he didn't get the evidence the second reason why the scholars they differ amongst themselves is تعرض الأدلة sometimes the evidence that reaches them to them it seems contradicting to them the evidence in and within itself doesn't contradict one another because it comes from Allah سبحانه وتعالى فَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا if this was to come from anyone other than Allah you would find contradiction because both the Qur'an and the Sunnah are from Allah فَسُنَّةُ النَّبِيِّ وَحْيٌ ثَانٍ عَلِيهِ مَا قَدْ أُطْلِقَ الْوَحْيَانِ the Sunnah is from who? it's from Allah سبحانه وتعالى Allah mentions here سبحانه وتعالى وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَى مَا ضَلَّ صَحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَى Muhammad is not misguided everything he said is what? it's a revelation from Allah سبحانه وتعالى so the Qur'an and the Sunnah are both from who? they both come from Allah سبحانه وتعالى so there's no contradiction, they won't contradict one another they actually complement one another but the scholar when he looks at it he sees to see they're not going together the reason is because maybe one is general and one is specific maybe one is restricted and the other one is restricted maybe one is abrogated and the other one is the abrogator يعني العامل خاص مطلق مقيد ناسخ منسوخ one is حقيقة and one is مجاز all of these is why scholars would do it I'll give an example of give a few examples for people to understand this one we have two hadiths of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم the hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا كان الماء قلتين لم يحمل الخبث if the water reaches قلتين it can't take خبث it can not be filthy if the water reaches that amount which is قلتين if it reaches that amount it can not take impurities أبو داود تلميذ النساء حديث من عمر رضي الله تعالى عنهما إن شاء الله تعالى الإسناد الصحيح if you want to see the authenticity of it go to the خلاصة الأحكام and also the مجموع both of them he authenticated it there Ibn Hajar authenticated it in his كتاب تنخس الحبير and also Shaykh للباني رحمه الله authenticated it in كتاب روائي الغليل you can find it there that's one hadith this hadith states that if the water reaches قلتين that water can not be impure ok the second hadith we have is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said إن الماء طهور and the water is pure لا ينجسه شيء that the water is pure there is nothing that can make it impure إن الماء طهور لا ينجسه شيء أبو داود النساء sorry أبو داود التلميذ النساء all narrated it من حديث أبي سعيد الدين القدري رضي الله تعالى عنه and this حديث الصحيح بمجمع طرقها when you bring all the chains of narrations together again if you want to see the authenticity go to the كتاب خلاصة الأحكام المجموع بالإمام النووي تنخس الحبير and also اروائي الغليل in those three references you can find it here these two hadiths there is something they are not contradicting in and there is a particular thing that they are contradicting one another in both of the hadith both the hadiths what they don't contradict in each other is two things there is two things that they do not contradict one another the first thing is if the water reaches قلتين or more they don't differ both of them that the water cannot take impurity so they agree with each other on that the second thing that both hadiths compliment one another is that if the water is below قلتين that it can't take impurity if one of the four description changes and the reason for this is because of the اجمع الامام ابن المنذر ابن مولاقن mentioned the three things the taste, the fragrance and the color, if those three changes the fragrance the taste fragrance which is a scent if the color changes and if the taste changes this water is impure, there is a unanimous agreement upon that if it is less than قلتين and three of those changes, they both agree that it is impure the question here is which is the تعرض coming, is that if the water doesn't change but impurity was thrown into it and it is below قلتين this is where the تعرض seems to come from how do you reconcile between it the reconciling here now is this hadith has a مفهوم and the hadith of Abi Sa'id al Khudri has a منطوق because the hadith is saying إِنَّ الْمَآءِ إِذَا بَلَغَ قُلَّتَيْنِ if the water reaches قلتين لم يحمل الخبر if the water reaches قلتين it will not take impurity means if it doesn't reach قلتين it will? it will take impurity so here is where the issue comes from Yeah, and this issue the reason for the khilaf of this issue is can a Takhseesu al-umumi bidalil al-khitab Can you restrict a mantoq based on a mafhum? Saheb al-Maraki he says wa a'tabiril ijma'a jullal nasi wa kismayil mafhumi kalqiyasi Saheb al-Maraki mentions that when he speaks about muqassas al-mufasil, he mentions that the qiyas Sorry the mafhum, the two types of mafhum, mafhum al-muwafaq and mafhum al-khalafah, they can restrict the mantoq That's the madhab he takes.

The conclusion is:

أَنَّ الْقُرُوءَ فِي لُغَةِ الْعَرَبِ مُشْتَرَكٌ (that the word “الْقُرُوء” in the Arabic language is mushtarak – i.e., it carries two possible meanings).

So they disputed one another based on that.

Fourth and Final Reason for Ikhtilaf:

اختلاف في القواعد الأصولية (a disagreement in the usooli principles)

For example:

الْأَصْلُ فِي سِغَةِ الْأَمْرِ إِذَا تَجَرَّدَ عَنِ الْقَرَائِنِ (Is the original ruling of an imperative form (command) when stripped of any contextual indicators (qara'in) that it implies obligation (wujub) or not?)

This is a question amongst scholars. If Allah commands us to do something, but this command is devoid of any external context or indicators — does this command inherently imply obligation (wujub) or not?

There is a discussion on this issue; it is not unanimously agreed upon.

Another example:

أَمَرَ يَقْتَضِي الْفَوْرِيَّةَ وَالتَّكْرَارِ (Does a command imply immediacy (fawriyyah) and repetition (takrar) or not?)

If Allah commands us to do something, does it mean it must be done immediately and repeatedly?

There is a scholarly discussion on this as well — it is not agreed upon.

These are examples of قواعد أصولية (usooli maxims/principles).

And there are many other reasons that العلامة محمد بن عبد الحليم بن عبد السلام بن تيمية (Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله) mentions regarding why scholars differ and why there is خلاف (disagreement) amongst the scholars.

Final Question / Comment:

Okay, the last question I have for you in this particular episode is not really a question — it is more of a comment.

"Salafiyyah is not a madhhab (school of thought). It did not exist during the Prophet’s ﷺ time, nor during the time of the تابعين (followers of the companions). It is a newly invented cult.”

The reality is: those who say this have not truly understood what Salafiyyah means.

Salafiyyah means:

Following the Qur’an and the Sunnah upon the understanding of the three golden generations — the Sahabah (companions), the Tabi’un (followers), and the Atba’ al-Tabi’in (followers of the followers).

Salafiyyah does not mean:

• Fanatical blind-following (تعصب) of a particular madhhab.
• Nor does it call to turning away from the madhhabs entirely or neglecting the statements of scholars.
• Nor does it advocate that everyone should independently perform ijtihad on their own.

When it comes to madhhabs, Salafis revolve around four foundational points:

1. The truth (الحق) is not necessarily found in the statements of the scholars.

The statements of scholars are not a proof in and of themselves.

You can’t say, “Abu Hanifa said,” and treat that like saying:

سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا (We hear and we obey)

That kind of response is only for Allah. As Allah says:

إِنَّمَا قَوْلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذَا دُعُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَن يَقُولُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا (“The only statement of the believers when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them is that they say, ‘We hear and we obey.’” — Surah An-Nur, 24:51)

So:

أَقْوَالُ الْعُلَمَاءِ (Statements of the scholars) وأَقْوَالُ الأَئِمَّةِ (Statements of the Imams) لَيْسَتْ دَلِيلًا فِي حَدِّ ذَاتِهَا (Are not proofs in and of themselves)

Ibn Taymiyyah said in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, volume 6:

Ahl al-‘Ilm (the scholars) unanimously agree that only the Qur’an and the Sunnah are considered as daleel (evidence). Anyone else’s statement is not a hujjah (binding proof) on its own.

2. The truth is not restricted to the four Imams.

As mentioned earlier, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhaj al-Sunnah, volume 3:

“No one from Ahl al-Sunnah has ever said that the consensus of the four Imams is an infallible proof.” (إجماع الأئمة الأربعة حجة معصومة)

Meaning, the truth can sometimes be outside of what all four agreed upon.

3. Salafis believe that if a person is able to search for the evidence (dalil), then he must do so.

If he does not have the ability, then he may follow someone else's opinion (taqlid) as a rukhsah (a concession).

As Allah says:

فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ (“Fear Allah as much as you are able.” — Surah At-Taghabun, 64:16)

لَا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا (“Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.” — Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:286)

4. Shaykh Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti, when explaining the verse:

أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ أَمْ عَلَى قُلُوبٍ أَقْفَالُهَا (“Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon their hearts?” — Surah Muhammad, 47:24)

He emphasizes that every believer should reflect and contemplate on the Qur’an as much as they are capable.

I encourage everyone who can read Arabic to refer to his tafsir book:

أضواء البيان في إيضاح القرآن بالقرآن (Adwa’ al-Bayan fi Idah al-Qur’an bil-Qur’an) by Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti.

In his tafsir of this verse in Surah Muhammad, Gold — tens of pages — he comments on their pondering over the Qur'an. He argues with Usuliyin who say that you can't do pondering on the Qur'an unless you are a Mujtahid and things like that. He discusses that in great detail and he mentions there:

وَبِهَذَا تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ الْمُضْطَرَّ لِلتَّقْلِيدِ الْأَعْمَى إِضْطِرَارًا حَقِقَةً بِحَيْثُ يَكُونُ لَا قُدْرَةَ لَهُ الْبَتَّةَ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ مَعَ عَدَمِ تَفْرِيطٍ لِكَوْنِ لَا قُدْرَةَ لَهُ، وَلَهُ قُدْرَةٌ عَلَى الْفَهْمِ وَقَدْ أَعْتَقَ أَعْقَتَهُ عَوَائِقٌ قَاهِرَةٌ عَنِ التَّعَلُّمِ، أو هو في أثناء التعلم ولكنه يتعلم تدريجيا، فهو معذور في التقليد المذكور للضرورة لأنه لا مندوحة له عنها، أما القادر على التعلم المفرط والمقدِّم آراء الرجال على ما علم من الوحي فهذا ليس بمعذور

And if a person doesn't have the ability, and he hasn't got the ability, he hasn't got the strength, he hasn't got the knowledge to go follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then he can blind follow. But the one who is negligent — he says — and deliberately chooses to take the views of the scholars and abandons the Qur'an and the Sunnah, that person is not excused.

The fourth and final point — that Salafis, when it comes to Madahib — is that they believe ضرورة اطلاع العالم على مذاهب أهل العلم: look at the views of the scholars, look at who struggles, look who is closest to the Haqq and the truth. And this is something that Salafis, when it comes to Madhhab — these are the four points they have: be open-minded, go research, and look into the matters.

JazakAllah Khair.

Moving on to the next podcast we did, we actually looked at the Aqidah — the creedal belief of a particular group known as the Ash'ara. Let's give the viewers a short clip just to refresh their memory of what we spoke about.

Can you please define briefly what Aqidah means? And the second one is: please can you go through who are the Ash'ara?

So Al-Aqidah is the six articles of faith:

تؤمن بالله و ملائكته و كتبه و رسله و اليوم الآخر و تؤمن بالقدر خيره و شره

And there are also other things that scholars add on to Aqidah, which they've taken from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the unanimous agreement of the Salaf as-Salih — the pious predecessors — which is the issue of مسمى الإيمان: what does Iman actually mean? The issue of Al-Imamah — related to the Muslim leader: how do we deal with the Muslim leader? And other issues like that. Generally speaking, that is what Aqidah is.

The Ash'ara — they refer themselves back to a man by the name of... who goes back to, originally, the noble companion Abu Musa al-Ashari. Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari’s father — he was from the people of — he was a Muhaddith.

His father. Can I define who are Ahlus Sunnah, so we have an understanding of it?

You can. But before I allow you to do that, you're saying Ahlus Sunnah are not the Ash'ara? Because the Ash'ara call themselves Ahlus Sunnah as well.

And the scholars say it means he’s in line with the revelation, and the Hadiths in his speech and his actions. You can't be from the people of the Sunnah while you're still opposing Allah and His Messenger. So the Sunnah is the Prophet and the four rightly guided Khulafa — in their speech, in their belief, and in their actions.

Is that something a person can deny?

No, that's perfectly fair. That's fair to say that this is it. But I want you to understand one thing — like we spoke about last time — that the Madahib in Fiqh... and I understand your point, that it's difficult — in Fiqh and Aqidah, no problem — the Madahib in Fiqh, they were humans who were attempting to understand the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the Companions. In Aqidah, these are also human attempts to try and understand the Qur'an, Sunnah, and the Companions. You might disagree with them. They might get it wrong. You might say this goes against the Qur'an. But it's their interpretation of the Qur'an — that’s my point.

What I'm saying to you is that these issues have unanimously been agreed upon. Every Muslim would agree: the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the Sahaba is the way forward.

Ash'ari don't agree with that.

I'm going to bring their references and their statements. Anyone I mention from the Ash'ara is not someone they are going to deny. And I'm going to prove today that the Ash'ara today — the Ash'ara that we know today — are not the Ash'ara of the early way of Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari. The Ash'ara of today are Jahmiyyah — Mahb. Fakhruddin ar-Razi gave precedence to that logic over the text. With that premise, he comes to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. He is going to believe what the Aqal has affirmed. So when you see them interpret verses to a meaning that you're thinking — this is what they came to — it's not because they believe the Qur'an and the Sunnah to be a source of legislation.

Let's go back a step. Because what part of that, in your mind, goes against the Qur'an?

The Qur'an takes precedence over our Aqal.

Let me give you another statement.

I'm sorry, wait one second. I don't want you to move from this. Because I want you to understand something. Because you're looking at it from your perspective, and I can understand the way you are looking at it. But I want you to understand the other person's perspective.

When you hear about that Allah descends to those — you say — and someone asks you how does He do it, you say Allahu A'lam. We don't...

You have just done what Fakhruddin ar-Razi is exactly saying: the Aqal doesn't understand, so we make tafwid. We say Allahu A'lam. Allah told us in the Qur'an.

Again, I'm not choosing what I want to believe and what I want to do tafwid on.

They don't see the truth.

That's your claim on them.

No — Sunusi is one of the great books they study. He's got a Kitab called Sharhul Kubra. So he's saying here: anyone who claims that the way to know the truth is the Kitab and the Sunnah, the refutation on this person is the following:

Harajul, Shaheed.

Imagine I said this to you. They believe it’s min usool al-kufri — it's disbelief of Allah — to say I'm going to hold on to the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Bayjuri has a Risalah called Ilm al-Tawheed. This is an Aqidah book. Ilm al-Tawheed it's called. You're an Ash'ari — this is the book you're taught. You learn it. Ibrahim al-Bayjuri is considered Shaykh al-Islam for them. They call him Shaykh al-Islam — Ibrahim al-Bayjuri.

Look at how he talks — just want people to understand what Aqidah for them is — and Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s Risalah, for example, or Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah, if you haven't read it — it's Wasitiyyah. We studied it — Wasitiyyah — three, four pages. It's just daleel. Ibn Abdul Wahhab — every time. That's very common in it.

Look what he does. He says: “Existence is a must. The opposite to existence is — not to exist.” You're waiting for Ayat al-Qur’an, right? The evidence for that is the existence of the creation.

It’s something to be shocked with. People study this as a form of Tawheed. He negates Allah’s names and attributes with not one Ayah or Hadith.

Look at their lectures and their reminders and their works — the Qur’an and the Sunnah are very little.

It’s a very big topic, you've given me a very short period of time. What I want to say is that we're out of time.

Okay, so we spoke about a number of different issues. We really dissected this group's belief in a lot of detail. I think you brought a lot of new information to the table, which may not have been heard in the English language before. You went into their books, you quoted from their books, you quoted from their scholars, and you really showed how they have deviated and how it was kind of a progressive deviation.

You mentioned four individuals, I believe. It was a kind of progressive deviation into what we end up now — where they are so far from Ahl al-Sunnah on one side, and the Ash’ara on the other side. And also you also addressed some of the more contemporary challenges like: why are you even talking about Aqidah? Do these abstract matters of Aqidah even affect anybody in the 21st century?

So that was quite a comprehensive podcast. It was a controversial one, but I thought it was a comprehensive one. And I think a lot of people who want to understand this particular group's methodology more can refer to the full video.

Any thoughts that you have about this particular podcast?

It’s important to learn Tawheed (Islamic monotheism), you know, and it’s important to study Tawheed and ground yourself with Tawheed. It’s why you’re in this world. Allah says in the Qur’an that the reason why you were brought to this world, and Allah brought you here, is to worship Him — Subḥānahu wa taʿālā (Glorified and Exalted is He).

So you have to study what ʿIbādah (worship) is. You have to understand what can nullify your ʿIbādah — your act of worship. You need to study what Lā ilāha illa Allāh (There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah) means. It’s the purpose why you’re here.

Allah mentions that this word Lā ilāha illa Allāh is a word of salvation and prosperity. It grounds a person in this world, and it brings them prosperity in the Hereafter. You’re going to have safety in this world, and Paradise is going to wait for you in the Hereafter.

The Prophet ﷺ explained in this āyah (verse) that the word ẓulm (injustice) here means shirk (associating partners with Allah). He said: “Did you not hear the statement of the righteous slave of Allah?”

So studying Tawheed — whether it be Tawheed al-Rubūbiyyah (Oneness of Allah’s Lordship), Tawheed al-Ulūhiyyah (Oneness of Allah’s Worship), and Tawheed al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt (Oneness of Allah’s Names and Attributes) — the three types of Tawheed that are found in the Qur’an...

Allah mentions in this verse the three types of Tawheed: al-Rubūbiyyah, al-Ulūhiyyah, and al-Asmāʾ.

Allah mentions in Sūrat al-Fātiḥah: "Al-ḥamdu lillāhi Rabb al-ʿĀlamīn" (All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds) — al-Rubūbiyyah. "Al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm" (The Most Merciful, the Especially Merciful) — al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt.

(By the way, I could read the whole Fātiḥah; I just jumped from those verses to the other.)

So in those verses, Allah Taʿālā (Most High) tells us al-Rubūbiyyah, al-Ulūhiyyah, and al-Asmāʾ, which are found in the Qur’an.

Great scholars of Islam have also mentioned these three. From those great scholars of Islam: al-Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, Ibn Baṭṭah — Allah mentions it. Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah mentions it. Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī mentions it in his Tafsīr (exegesis). Even Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, in his book Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), he agrees and he refutes those people who deny the concept of Tawheed. He mentions it in the Muqaddimāt (introductions) of his book Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn.

I’ve read the Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn ample times, so I’m very acquainted with the book.

The point, brothers — and sisters who are watching — is that you have to ground yourself with your Tawheed. You have to ground yourself with your ʿAqīdah (creed). You have to study these things. And then, when you study that, you study the ṭawāʾif (groups) that are out there.

As the poet said: "ʿaraftu al-sharra lā li-l-sharri lakinna li-tawaqqīhi wa man lam yaʿrif al-khayra mina al-sharri yaqʿ fīhi" (“I learned about evil not for the sake of evil, but to avoid it. And whoever does not know good from evil will fall into it.”)

A man found Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. The people used to go to the Prophet ﷺ and ask him about the good, and I would go to him and ask him about the evil because I was scared that I might fall into it.

Let’s go to some of the questions that people had.

The first one I have for you is, don't you think defining ilmul kalam as Greek philosophy is a bit misleading? I mean al-Ghazali specifically refuted the Greeks yet he still partook in kalam. We have to understand the marahil and the stages that ilmul kalam went through. Then you'll understand is ilmul kalam and its philosophy the same or are they two different things? The marahil that it went through are as follows.

The first stage is marhala, a stage where it's the early mutakallimeen like Wasim al-Ata and Amr ibn Ubaid and Abu al-Hudayl al-Allaf and Muhammad ibn Hudayl al-Basri. These people, Ibrahim al-Naddam, the Mu'tazila, the heads of the figures. Wasim al-Ata who took from Hassan al-Basri but Hassan kicked him out of his halaqah.

Amr ibn Ubaid which Abu Harith is a la'natullah ala Amr ibn Ubaid. May Allah's curse be upon Amr ibn Ubaid and Abu al-Hudayl al-Allaf whose name is Muhammad ibn al-Hudayl al-Basri and Ibrahim al-Naddam. These people are the early stage of the mutakallimeen.

When you look at them, the science of ilmul kalam is all over the place. The mustalahat are all over the place. Mutanathira.

They're not organized for them because the science hasn't fully been written properly. Does that make sense? Because it's the early stages but they did have terminologies that they adopted because at this particular time, the Greek logians works like Plato and Aristotle and their works have been pushed into the Muslim world so they are acquainted with it but the science hasn't been written very well. And this particular time, the scholars do mention like Sheikh and other great scholars mention that this particular time, Aristotle and Plato's argument and Socrates' arguments are not yet put to the forefront.

The second marhalat is marhalat where the asha'ira came into the discussion and they came and they went into this marhalat. This is called marhalat al-tatawwur where it evolved more ilmul kalam where it has madrasah and science. They introduced something known as ithbat al-jawhar al-fard and other than that which they pushed but originally was taken from the Greek logians works.

The third marhalat which is a marhalat where ilmul kalam and ilmul falsafa philosophy became one and the other. They became exactly the same and people studied it. The last and final stage is the blind followers who came after that, Bayjuri and Sanusi and the likes of these people who didn't add anything else to it except just manipulate it and play around with it.

So ilmul kalam today when you really look at it and you discuss it and you study it and you observe it, you can't separate it from philosophy. It's one and the other. The next question I have for you from this episode, what is the difference between maturidiyas and asha'iris? When it comes to the maturidiyas and asha'ira, there are a few things we need to look at.

The first thing is that the maturidiya is a kalamiyatun bid'iyatun. They are from the mutakellimin and they are an innovated group. The maturidiya, they go back to a man by the name of Abu Mansur Al Maturidiyu.

His name is Muhammad Ibn Mahmud Al Maturidiyu Al Samarkandiyu. The place he is from is Maturid and Maturid is a small village inside Samarkand which is Ma Waraa Al Nahra. That's where he was born, Abu Mansur Al Maturidiyu.

And it's been attributed to him and it wasn't attributed to him when he was alive. It just became like even the asha'ira after Abu Al Hassan Al Asha'iri died, the group came about. Abu Mansur Al Maturidiyu, the group, the maturidiya, they came out after he died.

So it went through stages, the madhhab. There's a madhhab which is known as marhalatul ta'sis where the foundations were being placed and this was at the beginning when he, Abu Mansur Al Maturidiyu, would debate with the mu'tazira. Everybody was debating with the mu'tazira.

The mu'tazira were the problem. Every group, argumentation. So he debated with them but he adopted some things from them as well.

He took some of their views and he got affected by them in many issues. After that he got affected by a man whose name is Ibn Kullab who died in 240 Hijri. He adopted from him the concept of, which we already spoke about, the speech of Allah He took that from them.

So this was the beginning, the early stages. And then came the marhalatul taqween where it became structured and he had followers. Him, Abu Mansur Al Maturidiyu, he in terms of the madhhab that he follows from the four imams is the Hanafi madhhab.

And his madhhab, at this marhalatul taqween where the madhhab has been established and everything, it was aided and supported by Abu Al Qas, two individuals who pushed it, who gave it some taqween, structured it a bit. It was Abu Al Qasim Ishaq Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ismail Al Hakeem Al Samarkandi and also Abu Muhammad Abdul Karim Ibn Musa Ibn Isa Al Bazdawi. Now came after that day, but no authorships here, no works have been written.

And then came the marhalatul ta'leef, wal tasneef, wal ta'seel. Authorship works were being written, foundations were being placed fully and this is where Abu Al Mu'in Al Nasafi and Najmuddin Umar Al Nasafi came about. They placed qawa'id and usool for the madhhab, and then after that is the last and final stage which is where it spread, tawastu'u al intishar.

And it spread in many lands and it really got helped by the Salateen Al Dawlatul Uthmaniyah, they pushed it a lot, the Ottoman Empire, because they adopted it, they loved it. So it spread in many Arab countries, also India, that's where it really spread, Turkey spreads, they follow the madhhab, Persia also, Uzbekistan, all these places spread a lot in those lands. And the one who pushed it is Kamal Ibn Hummam, he pushed it a lot.

So in terms of the madhhab of the Maturidiyah, that's the stages it went through. In terms of difference between them and Ahlul Sunnah in general, the Maturidiyah when it comes to Usool Al Deen, Aqeedah, they categorize it into two. They say there's something called Al-Ilahiyat and that which they call Al-Shar'iyat.

That which they call Al-Ilahiyat is basically Aqliyat. It is that which mayasta'iq, mayasta'iqillu al-aqlu bi-ithbatiha. The aqal can independently prove these things.

And here they add in tawheed of Allah Ta'ala, Allah's names and attributes, that's what they do. Tawheed of Allah Ta'ala and also Allah's names and attributes, they put it into the Al-Ilahiyat, Al-Aqliyat, things that can be proven logically. Then they go to Al-Shar'iyat which is basically Al-Sam'iyat, textually based.

And here they put in Al-Nubuwat, prophecy, they put in Adhab al-Qabri, the issues related to the hereafter, Yawm al-Akhirah. And even amongst themselves they differ upon the Nubuwat, should we put it into the Al-Aqliyat or the Sam'iyat or the Al-Ilahiyat or the Al-Shar'iyat, which one should we put it under. They go against Ahlus Sunnah in many things.

First of all is where they take their Deen from. They just divided into Al-Aqliyat and Al-Sam'iyat, whereas Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama'ah, where do they take their religion from? Al-Qur'an wal-Sunnah and the Ijma' of the Ummah. They don't.

Also, they agree with the Mu'tazila and the Asha'ira in the issue of affirming Allah Ta'ala's existence. Sorry, mainly they agree with the Mu'tazila and the Asha'ira in the issue of how do you believe in Allah Ta'ala. We believe believing in Allah Ta'ala is to know Tawheed, and et cetera, right? They believe, as we mentioned, Awal Wajib al-Mukallaf, the first in this place upon the person who's Mukallaf, who's reached the age of puberty, is another, right? Remember, looking and pondering, which they mean Dalil ul-A'rad wa Hudut al-Ajsam.

Which you touched on, and obviously it's a big issue. It's a very big issue. So according to them, the people are not Muslims.

They make Takfir of Amatul Nas. So from that perspective, the people are not Muslims according to them. Also, when it comes to Allah Ta'ala's characteristics of speech, they agree with the Asha'ira.

The difference between them and the Asha'ira is, Asha'ira, they affirm how many characteristics? They affirm seven characteristics. Whereas the Matulidiyya, they affirm eight characteristics. They say Al-Hayatu, Al-Qudrah, Al-Ilm, Al-Irad, Al-Sam'a, Al-Basr, Al-Kalam, and Al-Taqween.

That's the eighth one that they add on to there. This is what they affirm, the Matulidiyya. Also, the difference between them is the issue of Mas'alat al-Tahseen wa al-Taqbeeh al-Aqliyayn.

It's another issue. They are Murji'ah, just like the Asha'ira. When we spoke about, they are Murji'ah.

When it comes to Iman, they believe Al-Tasdiqu bil-Qalbi faqat. Just affirm it in your heart. Some of them say Al-Iqrar, on the tongue.

Affirm it on your tongue. And actions don't enter into Iman. It doesn't increase nor does it decrease.

They say it's Haram to say the Mas'alat Ahl al-Sunnah mention, which is Al-Istithna'a fil-Iman. To say, Ana mu'minun insha'Allah. They don't allow that.

They also believe Ana al-Islam wa al-Imana mutaradifan. Islam and Iman are just one and the other. So they fall short on that issue.

I encourage, if anybody wants to really know about them more, more, more, there's a Risala Majesteh written by Shams al-Afghani Salafi, Rahimahullah. He wrote a kitab called Al-Ma Turidiyya wa Mawqifu wa Mawqifu min Turhidil Asma'i wa Asifat. It's a very beneficial kitab.

I really admire it. So I encourage people insha'Allah ta'ala to read that kitab. Also Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Rahman al-Khamis.

He has a kitab called Manhaj al-Ma Turidiyya fil-Aqidah. Also Shaykh al-Islam ibn Uthaymiya discusses them in great details in his Majmu'u al-Fatawa and also in his Kitab al-Istikama. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymiya, if you go to his Majmu'u, the third volume, page 307-308, he also talks about them over there as well.

Okay. So is it fair to say that the Ma Turidiyya and the Asha'ara are very similar in a lot of things and then there are also some small differences between them like the fact that the Ma Turidiyya are from eight characteristics and so the Asha'ara are only from seven and things like that. It's a very small difference between the two but they are one and the other.

So one of the things that came up time and time again on our podcast was the difference between textual evidences and using the Aqal, the intellect and a questioner has asked to what extent are we allowed to use Aqal in the religion? Are we allowed to use the intellect in the religion? First of all, we have to understand the Aqal according to Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah has a very high station and we in Inshallah may Allah make us from Ahlus Sunnah, we believe Inshallah that the Aqal has a Manzilah Rafi'ah, a high level. For example, if you look at the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ when he speaks about who is commanded to do acts of worship, who is Manootun bil Takleef and who do we say you have to fast, you have to pray or you have to go Hajj, is a person who has Aqal, sanity. The Prophet ﷺ said in the Hadith the pen has been lifted from three.

The one who is sleeping until he wakes up. And the one who is a child who has reached the age of puberty. And last but not least, and the one who is insane until he gains sanity.

So you can see it's given an importance to it. The Shara'a has made Manatul Takleef upon the Aqal. Also, the Qur'an and the Sunnah when you look at it, it urges us to think and ponder and analyse and critique.

We've been told to do all of that. If you look at the concept of Tadabbur and Tafakkur and Tadakkur, all of those are referring to people to use their Aqal. Also Allah ﷻ praise the people who have great minds.

Allah ﷻ praise them. Smart people, the clever people, the ones who use their brain, they're the ones who are going to take reminders from all of this. Allah ﷻ praise them.

Also Allah ﷻ spoke against those people who dismiss using their Aqal in its right place. Allah ﷻ says, وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمُ اتَّبِعُوا مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ قَالُوا بَلْ نَتَّبِعُ مَا أَلْفَيْنَ عَنِهِ آبَاءَنَا أَوَّ لَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعَقِلُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ وَمَثَلُوا الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا كَمَثَلِ اللَّذِي يَنْعِقُوا بِمَا لَا يَسْمَعُوا إِلَّا دُعَاءً وَنِدَاءً صُمُّوا بُكْمُ الْعُمْيُونَ فَهُمْ لَا يَعَقِلُونَ So Allah ﷻ spoke about the people who basically, when they are told to follow the dalil, and they're told to follow the proofs and the evidences, their response is, قَالُوا بَلْ نَتَّبِعُ مَا أَلْفَيْنَ عَنِهِ آبَاءَنَا We will follow that which we found from our forefathers. And Allah ﷻ, He says, قَالُوا بَلْ نَتَّبِعُ مَا أَلْفَيْنَ عَنِهِ آبَاءَنَا وَلَوْ كَانَ أَبَاؤُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ شَيْئًا What about if your fathers are not? They're telling you things that are insane.

Are you going to still follow them? Are you going to do it? Also then Allah ﷻ, He speaks about the people who basically call unto the dead who can't hear them, can't speak to them, and they just call unto them. And then Allah ﷻ, He said, صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌّ فَهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ So this shows you the importance that the mind has. Also Allah ﷻ, He mentions that on the Day of Resurrection, the people who are going to regret it are the people that didn't use their minds.

وَقَالُوا لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعَقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِي أَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ فَاعْتَرَفُوا بِذَنْبِهِمْ فَسُحْقًا لِأَصْحَابِ السَّعِيرِ So we kind of touched on this issue of عقل and the text. We made a whole entire podcast on this particular issue. We spoke about it in great details.

But what I do want the people to listen is that the concept of عقل, there has to be a middle path that we take regarding it. بين الغلوي والجفاة We don't go extreme exaggeration and we don't go extreme negligence regarding the عقل. يعني we have two groups.

One group of people who have given the عقل unrestricted boundaries. Do what you want. Question everything.

Critique everything. Analyze everything. And think that the عقل hasn't got boundaries, hasn't got limitations.

Those people have gone extreme in the concept of العقل. And we have another group of people who dismissed the usage of the عقل. And they don't care about the عقل.

And they're the صوفية ومن نحى نحوهم And those are on their path. They don't care about the عقل. And they tell you things that are absurd and illogical absurdity.

You're like, are you sure you're saying that? Some people are like that. And another group of people like the معتزل ومن نحى نحوهم And those who take their path. The عقل is the source and it's the evidence and the proof.

And we need to be in the middle when it comes to that. We don't go extreme like these people. And we don't go extreme in this one.

How can we be in that middle path? What we have to understand is the عقل. It has a great station in our religion. I already mentioned that.

And I gave some evidences for it. But Allah did say in the Quran وَخُلِقَ الْإِنسَانُ ضَعِيفًا Allah created the human beings weak. In other words, the brain is part of those weak parts of your body.

Just like you can see and mashallah your eyes are good and 10 out of 10. Your sight is good. You can drive mashallah.

But your eyesight is restricted. The brain is a part of you that's also restricted. And there are things that the عقل cannot really speak about.

For example, you have to understand your عقل has لا دخل له في الغيبيات. You can't speak about the unseen. Because the عقل really speaks about that which it has seen.

عقل compares. If I ask you right now, draw for me an animal that does not resemble any animal on the face of this earth. I wouldn't be able to do it.

You wouldn't be able to. You're going to make the wing. It's a bird's wing.

You're going to take the whiskers from a cat. You're going to take characteristics from animals you've seen. You can't bring something to the table you haven't seen.

So the عقل cannot really speak about the unseen. His brain is not like that. Second thing is لا يستقل بالهداية.

The ʿaql (intellect) independently cannot know the detailed matters of guidance. That's why Allah Ta'ala said in the Qur’an:

وَلَقَدْ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي مَا إِنْ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِيهِ وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُمْ سَمْعًا وَأَبْصَارًا وَأَفْئِدَةً فَمَا أَغْنَىٰ عَنْهُمْ سَمْعُهُمْ وَلَا أَبْصَارُهُمْ وَلَا أَفْئِدَتُهُم مِّن شَيْءٍ إِذْ كَانُوا يَجْحَدُونَ بِآيَاتِ ٱللَّهِ وَحَاقَ بِهِم مَّا كَانُوا بِهِۦ يَسْتَهْزِءُونَ

“And We had certainly established them in what We have not established you, and We made for them hearing, vision and hearts; but their hearing and vision and hearts availed them not from anything [of the truth] when they were [continually] rejecting the signs of Allah; and they were enveloped by what they used to ridicule.” [Surah al-Ahqaf, 46:26]

Allah also says:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِّنْ أَمْرِنَا ۚ مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِى مَا ٱلْكِتَٰبُ وَلَا ٱلْإِيمَٰنُ

“And thus We have revealed to you a Spirit [i.e., the Qur'an] of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith…” [Surah ash-Shura, 42:52]

You didn't know this — none of this: مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِى مَا ٱلْكِتَٰبُ وَلَا ٱلْإِيمَٰنُ — “You did not know what the Book was, nor what faith was.”

You didn’t know the detailed issues of Iman (faith). You didn’t know the detailed issues of the religion. You didn’t — but Allah Ta’ala gave it to you.

So this shows you that the guidance is in whose hands? Allah Ta'ala.

The ʿaql can bring you to the general concept of guidance, but it can’t bring you to the detailed matters of guidance.

Last but not least, the ʿaql cannot speak when two people are arguing on a matter.

Let’s say these two are very smart people and they have a conflict. If a third person comes who is also smart, can he distinguish between the two of them? No. He just becomes a third problem — just another opinion added to the original two.

That’s why Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his lines of poetry:

يَا طَالِبَ الدَّرْكِ الْهُدَى بِالْعَقْلِ دُونَ النَّقْلِ لَنْ تَلْقَى لِذَاكَ دَلِيلًا

“O seeker of guidance through intellect alone without transmission (revelation), you will never find for that any proof.”

So the person has to understand that the ʿaql is like the eyesight — it’s like other parts of your body. It has restrictions and limitations. And that’s when you say: “I believe in Allah and His Messenger.” What they say hasn’t got those limitations — because Allah Ta'ala speaks about the unseen just as clearly as He speaks about the seen. We only have a pixel — Allah Ta'ala has the whole jigsaw.

Not to mention that people’s intellects differ. So whose intellect are you going to use to understand?

Let’s move on to the next podcast.

So in this one, we actually went into a little bit more detail about the same group — the Ashāʿirah — and we looked at one of the main deviations that has occurred between them and Ahlus-Sunnah, and that was how to understand Allah's names and attributes.

So let’s play a short clip for the viewers at home to see what we discussed.

And since we're going to be talking about Allah’s names and attributes, we have to understand that we’re not going to take any of this from anyone after the Prophet ﷺ and his companions. That’s the first group we’re taking from, and I think it’s very important that we agree on that.

Al-Imam al-Shāfiʿī debated a man by the name of Ḥafṣ al-Fard. Now ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbdil-Ḥakam said that after he debated with him, Imam al-Shāfiʿī was in utter disappointment and he hated ʿIlm al-Kalām (theological dialectic). And Imam al-Shāfiʿī used to say from that day, after that discussion, when he saw what this kind of ideology is, he used to say: For a person to do a mistake — and then people say, “Oh he made a mistake, it's just a mere mistake” — that is better than to make a mistake which leads to heresy, which is ʿIlm al-Kalām according to Imam al-Shāfiʿī.

I think we did it before, but just translate Kalām roughly. The truth is — it’s Greek philosophy. It’s knowledge that was taken from Aristotle and the likes of these people.

Also, by the way, I believe the whole entire Qur'an — there is no Mutashābih (ambiguous) in it.

The whole Qur’an — there's no Mutashābih in it?

Alif Lām Mīm is not Mutashābih?

Again, we’re talking about words. Alif Lām Mīm is Ḥurūf (letters). So you don’t believe a single word in the Qur’an is Mutashābih?

So what is Allah talking about here?

Alif Lām Mīm — we know the wisdom for why Allah chose it — to challenge the Arabs who were unable [to produce anything like the Qur'an]. But no one asks about the meaning of letters. We ask about the meaning of words.

So what does Allah mean in this verse when He says there is Mutashābih?

What does ABC mean?

Exactly. Alif Lām Mīm, we don’t read it as “Alam.” We read it as Alif Lām Mīm — the letters.

And the basic knowledge that you take in Naḥw (Arabic grammar) is when he speaks about a kalimah or a kalām, or the types of words, he mentions:

وَحَرْفٌ جَاءَ لِمَعْنًى "And a particle (ḥarf) that brings meaning..."

The basic book al-Ājurrūmiyyah mentions that the ḥurūf are two types: Ḥurūf al-Maʿānī (letters that carry meaning) and Ḥurūf al-Mabānī (structural letters).

So no one asks about the meaning of Ḥurūf al-Mabānī. No one ever says to you: “What’s the meaning of Alif, Bā, Tā, Thā, Jīm, Ḥā?”

So in the Qur’an, to ask that is incorrect. Allah affirms that there are āyāt in the Qur’an that are Mutashābih.

How can you sit here and say there’s no Mutashābih in the Qur’an? You’re going directly against what Allah says.

I’m saying to you — there’s no word in the Qur’an that is Mutashābih.

Then you said to me: Alif Lām Mīm, yeah?

And I said to you: a word, okay?

That’s considered letters.

So what does Allah mean in Ali ʿImrān, verse number 7, when He says there's Mutashābih?

Okay — the Mutashābih is nisbī — subjective. Each person has Mutashābih. There might be a verse in the Qur'an that I read, and I don't know what it means — so I take that ambiguous verse to the clear verses (Muḥkamāt). It might be Mutashābih to me — but not necessarily to somebody else.

So can the Mufawwidh say: It might be Mutashābih to us, but to Allah it's not?

No problem.

But that doesn’t mean you make that the rule for everyone else.

So you’re saying — within creation, the ʿulamā’ (scholars) — there is always someone alive on this planet who knows Ṣaḥīḥ (correct understanding).

So as you can see from that clip, the whole discussion in this podcast particularly revolved around an ayah in Sūrah Āli ʿImrān, ayah number 7, where Allah talks about Muḥkam (clear) and Mutashābih (ambiguous) verses.

And some of the Ashāʿirah, or the Ashāʿirah themselves, have broken up into two different stances in terms of how to understand Allah’s names and attributes:

• One group does ta’wīl (figurative interpretation) — they interpret them and give them alternative meanings.
• The other group does tafwīḍ — they say, “We don’t know what these names or attributes mean.”

Whereas Ahlus-Sunnah affirm the apparent meaning of these names and attributes.

So we had a very lengthy discussion — I think two or three hours plus — into that particular topic. And we went back and forth on some of the different arguments.

So I refer anybody who wants to get an insight into some of those details — they can watch the main episode, in shā’ Allāh.

Let’s move on to some of the questions that people had.

The first question is: Can Khabar al-Āḥād — which refers to single narrations — benefit us with certain knowledge, and can we use them in ʿAqīdah?

This concept of categorizing khabar into āḥād and mutawātir — first of all, let’s take a step back.

This, by the way — the concept of khabar and how it came to us — is actually a science. Or it’s a matter that’s discussed in the science of ḥadīth.

Even the uṣūliyyūn (scholars of legal theory) do talk about it — but it shouldn’t be something they talk about. It’s none of their concern.

They should be dealing with how to extract the understanding from the textual evidences — how we understand the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That’s what the uṣūliyyūn should be dealing with.

Whereas the muḥaddithīn (scholars of ḥadīth) and the people of hadith are the ones whose job it is to bring the authentication and the transmission — how it came to us. That’s their job.

So it’s not meant to be for the uṣūliyyūn to talk about it.

That’s why when it comes to uṣūliyyūn talking about these issues — and the issue of marāsīl (plural of mursal) and mursal ḥadīth — I really don’t take it from them.

 I stick to the Muhaddithīn (scholars of Hadith) on this issue. But when I go to the issue of: How do we then take the ruling out of the Qur’an and the Sunnah? — because they deal with the Dalālat al-Alfādh (indications of wordings), which is the bulk of Uṣūl al-Fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) — ʿĀmm, Khāṣṣ, Muṭlaq, Muqayyad, Mujmal (general, specific, absolute, restricted, ambiguous)… you know, they are the ones who deal with this.

So that’s: How do I benefit from this text?

Because the definition of Uṣūl al-Fiqh is — it’s a science where you research basically Dalālat al-Alfādh: This is a general text. This is a specific text. This is restricted. This is unrestricted. This is ambiguous. This is clear. This is abrogated. This is not abrogated. That’s Uṣūl al-Fiqh.

Whereas the concept of: How did this narration reach me? — Did it reach me through mass transmission? — Did it reach me through a few people narrating it? — that’s the job of the Muhaddithīn.

Is it authentic? Is it weak? Should the Mursal (a narration with a missing link) be accepted or not?

That’s something the Muhaddithīn deal with. But Uṣūl al-Fiqh has its say in those issues too. So it’s important to know whose job it is — and who it isn’t.

Anyways, the Muhaddithīn mentioned in the Kutub al-Ḥadīth (books of Hadith — i.e., classical Hadith collections), by the way, this is not something that the Ṣaḥābah (Companions) were unaware of — they were acquainted with Mutawātir (mass-transmitted) and Āḥād (solitary reports). So it’s important that we understand that.

They said the Khabar (narration/report) should be divided into two categories:

1. Bi iʿtibār uṣūlihi ilayna — In terms of how it reached us.
2. Bi iʿtibār man usnida ilayhi — In terms of who it is being attributed to.

Let me mention the second one first — who is it being attributed to?

• If it’s attributed to Allāh, it’s called Ḥadīth Qudsī (Sacred Hadith).
• If it’s attributed to the Prophet ﷺ, it’s called Marfūʿ.
• If it’s attributed to a Ṣaḥābī, it’s called Mawqūf.
• If it’s attributed to a Tābiʿī, it’s called Maqṭūʿ.

Simple as that.

Then they go to the first type: Bi iʿtibār uṣūlihi ilayna — How did this narration reach us?

They divided it into two:

• Mutawātir — Mass-transmitted
• Āḥād — Solitary (i.e., not mass-transmitted)

Now, Mutawātir is of two types:

1. Lafẓī — In wording
2. Maʿnawī — In meaning

For example, the Hadith: "Man kadhaba ʿalayya mutaʿammidan falyatabawwaʿ maqʿadahu min al-nār" "Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him take his seat in the Hellfire" — this is mass-transmitted. The scholars said it's Mutawātir. It has a multitude of narrators, and the people who narrated and transmitted it are large in number.

They basically defined Mutawātir as: "Mā rawāhu jamʿun ʿan jamʿin yastaḥīlu fī al-ʿādah tawāṭuʿuhum ʿala al-kadhib ilā ākhiri al-sanad" "A group narrated it from a group, such that it is inconceivable by custom that they could all have agreed upon a lie — from the beginning of the chain to the end."

And then they said: Āḥād is basically anything other than Mutawātir.

Then they broke Āḥād into categories, in terms of its ṭuruq (routes of transmission):

They said it’s three types:

1. Mashhūr — Well-known (narrated by three or more at each level, but not reaching Mutawātir)
2. ʿAzīz — Rare (narrated by two at each level)
3. Gharīb — Strange (narrated by only one at some level)

These three are all Āḥād — not Mutawātir.

Some scholars, like Abū ʿAbdillāh al-Ḥākim (ibn al-Bayʿ) made a mistake. He thought that all of Bukhārī’s Aḥādīth are ʿAzīz. But Imām Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ refuted him.

He said:

"Wa laysa sharṭan lil-ṣaḥīḥi faʿlamī Wa qad rūmi man qāla bintawāhumi"

Translation: "And it is not a condition for a Hadith to be authentic that it be supported by multiple chains — and those who claimed that were incorrect."

This idea that you sometimes hear people saying: "I will only take a Hadith if it is Mutawātir, and I will accept it — but if it is Āḥād, I won’t accept it."

This is not something you find in the early generations — the three noble generations — saying.

Earlier, you mentioned the issue of Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (رضي الله عنه) when he came to the people, and he didn’t know the answer. So he asked someone, and the Ṣaḥābī said something, and Abū Bakr asked: "Does anybody support you in this?"

How do we reconcile that with what you’re saying now?

Or take another Hadith — the Ḥadīth of Dhū al-Yadayn. When the Prophet ﷺ prayed the Ṣalāh and finished early, they said: "O Messenger of Allāh, was the prayer shortened or did you forget?"

He replied: "Neither."

Then Dhū al-Yadayn stood up and said: "O Messenger of Allāh, you prayed less!"

Then the Prophet ﷺ said: "Did anyone else agree with him?"

He sought another witness to affirm the report.

There are other narrations like this as well.

But this is different from the concept of: "I will not accept it unless it comes from more than one."

That’s not the same.

Abū Bakr requesting someone else — does that mean he wouldn’t have accepted it if it only came from one person? No.

Whereas these people are saying: "If it comes from one person, I will not accept it, regardless of how reliable that person is."

By the way, Āḥād narrations are not all at the same level. The Āḥād in Bukhārī and Muslim are referred to as:

Ma tqabbalahu al-Ummah — "That which the Ummah has accepted."

Because the Ummah unanimously agreed on the authenticity of these two books, the Āḥād within them are also unanimously accepted.

So the Āḥād in Bukhārī and Muslim are not like a regular Āḥād narration.

Now take a Hadith that is Āḥād, but it's transmitted through a Musalsal bi al-Aʾimmah (continuous chain through Imams):

For example:

• Imām Aḥmad
• narrated from al-Shāfiʿī
• who narrated from Mālik
• who narrated from Nāfiʿ
• who narrated from Ibn ʿUmar
• who narrated from the Prophet ﷺ

This chain — Mālik → Nāfiʿ → Ibn ʿUmar — is known as:

Asaḥḥ al-Asānīd — "The most authentic chain of narration."

Even though some scholars held back from giving it that title universally, others considered it to be a golden chain.

Imām al-ʿIrāqī, in his work on Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth (Hadith terminology), said:

"Fa-qīla Mālik ʿan Nāfiʿin bimā rawāhu ʿanhu nāsikū" Meaning: It was said that Mālik from Nāfiʿ is what the pious depend on.

So yes, that’s a golden chain. Imām al-Bukhārī considered Mālik → Nāfiʿ → Ibn ʿUmar to be Asaḥḥ al-Asānīd — the strongest chain.

So here we have Aḥmad narrated from al-Shāfiʿī, and al-Shāfiʿī narrated from Mālik. Mālik narrated from Nāfiʿ, and Nāfiʿ narrated from Ibn ʿUmar. Ibn ʿUmar narrated from the Prophet ﷺ. This is a powerful isnād (chain). Aḥmad is a beast — meaning a giant in knowledge — and a great scholar. Jabalul Asham (جبل الأشـمّ), the lofty mountain. Aḥmad raḥimahu Allāh taʿālā (رحمه الله تعالى) — may Allah have mercy on him. Lā tushākiluhu al-ghubār (لا تُشاكله الغبار) — meaning, the dust cannot rival him; no one is on his level.

Then we have Imām al-Shāfiʿī raḥimahu Allāh taʿālā — Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī, a great, trustworthy imām. Then we have Imām Abū ʿAbdillāh Mālik ibn Anas raḥimahu Allāh taʿālā, the Imām of Dār al-Hijrah (Madīnah). These three — Aḥmad, al-Shāfiʿī, and Mālik — how can the ḥadīth with such a chain be treated as just an ordinary āḥād (solitary) narration? No, it's muḥtaffun bil-qarā'in (محتفٌّ بالقرائن) — supported by corroborating evidence.

Anyway, the scholars have transmitted by consensus (ijmāʿ) that we must accept āḥād ḥadīth in all matters of the religion — all sciences and all fields. Because when Allah says in the Qur’an: وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ — “Obey Allah and the Messenger”, why is there no takhṣīṣ (restriction) mentioned? Like, "only if it’s mutawātir (mass-transmitted)"? There’s no such exception. Allah says clearly that there is no place for a believing man or woman to have a choice once Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter.

You and I both agree that this is authentic — the Prophet ﷺ said this. Yet some people say, “I still won’t accept it,” because, “if we do, it only leads to speculation.” What I want you to understand is this: whether it results in speculation and doubt, or whether it results in certainty — regardless, taking the ḥadīth is wājib (obligatory).

We're not going to lie and say that if a hundred people tell me something and one trustworthy person tells me something, they’re the same — no. We can't blind ourselves. A hundred people is obviously stronger. But that doesn’t mean that if this one person is reliable and nobody contradicts him, that he’s lying. There’s no reason for me to reject him.

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar says — he transmits from the era of the Ṣaḥābah, from the Tābiʿīn, and from the early generations — that they all accepted the narration of a single trustworthy person. Ibn Abī al-ʿIzz al-Ḥanafī says there's no disagreement in this issue regarding what’s in Bukhārī and Muslim — that these āḥād ḥadīth are to be accepted.

Other than that, he narrated in al-Ḥumaydiyyah that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zubayr said: “I was with Imām al-Shāfiʿī — Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī — and a man came to him and asked him a question. The man said to Imām al-Shāfiʿī, ‘The Messenger ﷺ ruled in this matter.’” Then the man asked, "Mā taqūlu anta?" — "What do you say?"

And Imām al-Shāfiʿī replied: Subḥānallāh! Tarānī fī kanīsah? Tarānī fī bayʿah? Tarānī ʿalā wasaṭi al-zunnār? — "Glory be to Allah! Do you see me in a church? Do you see me in a temple? Do you see me wearing the Christian belt?" Meaning: do you think I’m following another religion?

Then he said: Aqūlu qāla Rasūlullāh ﷺ kadha wa kadha, wa anta taqūlu lī mādhā taqūlu anta? — “I say: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said such and such, and you say to me: ‘What do you think?’” Of course, I will follow what the Prophet ﷺ said.

Ibn Al-Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim mentions in the kitab, muqtasab salat yaqul mursala alal jahameet wal mu'atila. And also Al-Imam Al-Zahabi mentions in the seerah, alam al-nubala. And Imam Al-Shafi'i even said, if you ever see me reject a hadith of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, as sahih, authentic, and I don't take it, and I reject it, and I leave it, all of you bear witness that I have lost my mind.

Something is not right with me. Also Al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, he said, wa kullu maa ruwiya AAalinnabi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, everything that's been transmitted from the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, bi-isnadin jayyidin aqrarna. If a hadith comes to us from the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, which is sahih, aqrarna bihi, we will affirm it.

wa idha lam nuqirra bima ja'a AAalinnabi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. If we don't affirm that which has come to us from the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, wa dafa'naahu wa radadna AAalallahi, and we reject it and we turn it back, then that means we will reject what? wa radadna AAalallahi amrahu. It will mean that we will reject Allah Ta'ala's commandments.

And then he recited the ayah, wa maa a'taakumu ar-rasoolu fa khudu wa maa na'aakumu AAanuhu fa antaahu. So here we find that Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, only condition was what? Authenticity. As long as it's authentically transmitted from the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Ibn Taymiyyah said, as-sunnah idha tabatat. If the sunnah has been affirmed, fa inna al-muslimina kulluhum mutafiquna ala wujubi itiba'iha. All of the Muslims are unanimously in agreement that it has to be followed and adhered to.

So as long as the hadith is authentic, regardless of whether it's mutawatir or ahad, we take it. And what I want people to really understand is that the rejectors of the hadith are two types. There are people who reject the hadith in its totality, and they're the ones who falsely call themselves Quraniyuna, and the Quran is free from them, kabara'ati dhi'bi min dami ibn Ya'qub.

The way that the wolf was free from the flesh of the son of Ya'qub, Yusuf, alayhi salam. And it was a lie when they said that Yusuf was eaten by the wolf, right? These people are also free from the Quran as they attribute it to themselves. Now, pay attention here.

Those we call them munkiri sunnah, the rejectors of the sunnah, the rejectors of the hadith of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Those ones are one type of rejectors of hadith. There's a lot- Who reject all of the hadith in its totality.

In its totality. And we have another group of people who are, they come with a radd, which is juzi. They partially reject the hadith, which is qabal al-ahad.

And this is a stepping stone to the complete and ultimate rejection of hadith of the Prophet, alayhi salatu wa salam. Very dangerous. Very, very dangerous.

Okay, the last question I have for you on this particular podcast, and we had a number of questions around this about the number of asha'ali scholars, and one name kept coming up over and over again. Why do you read Imam Nawawi's books if he was a deviant? Ahl al-sunnah wal jama'ah munsifuna. We're just, when it comes to rulings that we place upon people, may Allah make us from Ahl al-sunnah wal jama'ah.

The rulings that are placed on people is two types. A mistake a person falls into, and an innovation that renders a person an innovator. And Imam al-Nawawi, great imam, noble imam, mukhlis, sincere individual, illustrious, rahimahullah, the ummah have agreed upon his nobility and his righteousness.

Imam al-Nawawi is not ma'soom. I don't think anyone should think that. He's not infallible from mistakes.

Wala Ibn Taymiyyah, wala al-Dhahabi, wala Ibn Abdul Wahab, wala Ibn Baz, wala al-Fawzan. Nobody's free from mistakes. Every single person, they're judged based on the Quran and the sunnah.

If they get it right, it's accepted from them. If they get it wrong, it's rejected. The one whose statement is taken unrestrictedly is the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and Imam Maliki said, kullu yu'khadu min qawli wa yurad ila sahiba hadha al-qabr.

So it makes no sense to me that some people, when Nawawi is criticized, or Ibn Hajar is criticized, or Ibn Taymiyyah is criticized, or Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab is criticized, they get frustrated and angry. These great Imams, they themselves said it and mentioned that our statements, it's not the final, ultimate goal. It's not the final, ultimate truth.

Our statements, take it. Scale it, look at it. If it goes in line with the Quran and sunnah, take it.

If not, smack it against the wall. So Al-Imam Al-Nawawi is from those great scholars whose works we admire, we benefit from it. Without it, many of us wouldn't have understanding of the religion properly.

He's got great books. He's a faqih shafi'i. His Kitab al-Minhaj is one of the greatest books.

Sometimes, if you look at Islamic history, you find that the dowry of a woman would be Kitab al-Minhaj, that the man who, not just, by the way, giving the book to her, it would actually be, he'd teach her the Kitab, and educate her. This is not a joke. He sharh usuhu muslim, la yastaghni minhu talibu ilm.

A student of knowledge cannot be without it. Wala al-'alim, a scholar can't even be without it. It's a big Kitab.

It's a great, I mean, big book. Nawawi wrote, rahimahullah. Ma'dhalik, some of his statements in Allah's names and attributes are wrong.

It goes against the Madhab al-Salaf. Okay, which I believe, sincerely, that Al-Imam Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah, if he was alive today, and he was with us today, and he came across those mistakes, and he was brought to his attention, and he looked at it, and it was brought to him like that, I believe Nawawi would go back from his mistakes. Because he's a sincere person, a person who wanted to get closer to Allah Subh'anaHu Wa Ta-A'la who wanted to distance himself from mistakes and errors.

That's what he was. That's what he's known for, rahimahullah, rahmatan wasi'a. But what I do not accept, and I don't agree with, whoever says it, whoever says it, that Al-Imam Al-Nawawi is an ashaari.

I don't care who says that. Al-Imam Al-Nawawi is not an ashaari. Yes, he did agree with ashaari on some issues, like to say he's an ashaari means that he's upon the foundations of the ashaari.

Like Al-Imam Al-Nawawi does not reject the single hadiths. That's one of the fundamental beliefs of the ashaari. Nawawi, rahimahullah, accepts single narrations in hadiths.

Okay, look at his explanation of Sahih Muslim. Al-Imam Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah ta'ala, Al-Imam Al-Nawawi says, give him precedence to the aql over the naql. Never.

Never. Lakin, with that being said, Al-Imam Al-Nawawi has fallen into mistakes in the religion. Errors and mistakes.

They are pointed out. They're mentioned to the people. That's the summary of what? Just because you agree with a group on one thing, doesn't mean you agree with them on everything.

No, it doesn't. Ibn Taymiyyah, some of his views, we criticize it. We say this view of Ibn Taymiyyah is wrong.

We don't accept it. We say to Muhammad Abdul Wahab, some of his views here, no, we don't agree with it. So, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul Wahab, Ibn Hajar Al-Husqalani, Bayhaqi, great scholars of Islam, who seem from all through Islamic history, we look at their statements fairly.

Also, recently, I've been, I mentioned even in my last podcast, and I've looked deeply into it, that there's a Risalah that came out, it's called Juz'un Fihi Dhikru I'tiqad Al-Salih Fil Hurufi Wal Aswat. And this is attributed to Al-Imam Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah wa ta'ala. The tahqiq of the kitab is Abu'l-Fadl Ahmad Ibn Ali al-Dimyati.

When I look deep into this issue, is this kitab actually truly attributed to Al-Imam Al-Nawawi? I came to the conclusion that this is not his works. Even though I came across Shaykh Saleh Ibn Abdillah Ibn Hamad Al-Usaymi, saying that it is Al-Imam Al-Nawawi's book. But Bikulli Insaf, when I looked into it, I checked the manuscripts and everything, and I have the manuscripts, I checked it and I verified it, I come to the conclusion that this kitab, attributed to Hafiz Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah wa ta'ala, is null and void.

There are many reasons when you look at it. First of all, the muhaqqiq of the kitab, Abu'l-Fadl al-Dimyati, Ahmad Ibn Ali al-Dimyati, who did the tahqeeq of the kitab, did not mention in any way, shape or form, the attribution of the risalah to the author himself. In the way that the scholars of ilmul tahqeeq, ulama who do tahqeeqat al-kutub, the way they attribute it, there's a tariqah, there's a usloob, there's a manhaj.

When you attribute a book to the author, he didn't do it accurately. That's number one. The second one is, the maqtoot is unknown, it's attribution, the copy, the maqtoot that he used, is majhool al-nisbah, it's unknown.

Last but not least, every single body who wrote about that Imam Al-Nawawi's biography, everybody I looked at, in every places I went back to, to check the biography of Imam Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah wa ta'ala, not one person ever mentioned this particular, no one mentioned it. That Imam Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah wa ta'ala, wrote this. No one ever mentioned it.

And this is an aqeedah-related book. They never mentioned it. They mentioned all the works of his.

Okay. So this is a book that Shaykh Salih al-Husayni said that Imam Al-Nawawi repented from, or changed his position. Changed his position.

But you're being just and fair and saying, you've looked into this and you don't believe this book is his. I don't believe it. It would be good, it would be something praiseworthy, to be honest, and it would be good, it would be a good thing for us to say that half of Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah, and Imam Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah wa ta'ala, and Imam Al-Nawawi, rahimahullah wa ta'ala, came back from this issue, and this is a risalah for it.

But what we know is that Imam Al-Nawawi did not seem to come back from it. This was his belief. This is his view, rahimahullah.

Also, I did mention something in my podcast previously. Ibn Attar, Alauddin Ibn Attar, who's a student of Imam Al-Nawawi, one of the greatest students, the most profound, has a I'tiqad book, okay? When I was speaking about it, I kind of spoke about it as though it was the mu'taqadu ahl al-sunnah in everything he was saying, but even him, he still has in him, he still has, he still has, when he affirms Allah's, subhanahu wa ta'ala's, names and attributes, he does tafweer in it. Okay.

Because I went back to my notes, and so that was also a slip of the tongue from the podcast as well. Jazakallah khair for clarifying. Let's move on to the next podcast, inshallah.

We then went on to an issue of music, and whether that was permissible or not in Islam. Let's play a brief video just to give the viewers a reminder of the kind of things that we discussed. So I've looked into the books of the ulema, what they've said about al-ghina, for example, that's the term.

Al-ghina means singing. Al-ghina, the ulema, when I looked at their categorization or their definition of the word, I found that their categorization revolves around three. These types are, of course, kama dallata alayhi al-adillatu shar'iyah, the Quran has shown it, and the sunnah.

And also the istilah al-ulema, the usage of the scholars, ya'ni ahlul-lughah, ahlul-fiqh, and other than them, inshallah ta'ala. Okay, I know I don't want to get too deep into discussion because I've also got some points I want to contribute, but I just want to finish this foundation. Okay, so you split up music and singing into three types.

First one being permissible, second one being impermissible, and the third one is when people actually take the impermissible form and they use it in an attempt to get closer to Allah. It's like an innovation in the religion. So, the evidences that support me are the Quran, the sunnah of the Prophet, alayhi salatu wa salam, and the ijma' in Surah al-Lughman, Allah ta'baraka wa ta'alayhi wa sallam, from amongst the people, those who buy lahwal hadith.

Okay. Now, we have to, now we've got an ayah. Yeah.

When an ayah comes up like that, what we have to do is we have to say, okay, what did the early imams of Islam say about this? Fine, okay. The people we take it back to are the companions, number one. Okay.

Did the sahabas comment on this verse? We have three noble companions, three, not just companions, but real, knowledgeable imams and ulama of the sahabas commenting on this verse. We have Ibn Mas'ud, who didn't just say lahwal hadith means ghina, he actually swore by Allah that this is music. The Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, has come from him 14 evidences, and 14 hadiths that say it's haram.

Music, clearly mentioned music. Music. 14 hadiths.

First one is the most famous hadith of Imam al-Bukhari. la yakunanna they will be min ummati, from my ummah. qawmun ay people yastahilluna, they will permit for themselves.

Al-hira, which is zina, hira means al-farj, and al-harir means silk, wal-khamra and alcohol, wal-ma'azif and music. Okay, now you're going into an issue of ijma' or sukooti. You're saying that there's an ijma' upon the companions because this statement was made and nobody opposed it.

We have no one opposing it. Wallahi, when you look at the salaf, what they were saying about music, la qur'anu sh-shaytaan wa ruqyatu sh-shaytaan wa innaha yunbitu fil-qalbi al-nifaqi. Yeah, it brings hypocrisy in the heart.

You're saying they didn't even know the music where we're seeing today. Wallahi, this is the way that shaytaan gets to a person and it's been from the deceptions of shaytaan. I found myself, personally, that many people who've been struggling with sins, who've been falling into zina, who, it's through music.

Music, killing, zina, all of it, it makes it easy. Specifically, the lyrics they use, it makes it easier. Also, this concept of depression and anxieties, this is, it gives you it.

A lot of people, they connect themselves to it. I know people who told me that I listen to, when I'm sad, this music, and when I'm happy, I listen to this music, and when I'm reading, when I'm walking, I listen to this music, and when I do this, and then what happens to them is when they strip themselves from the music, they're dark, they're feeling hurt and heartbroken. Anyone who has the Quran, and has Mahmood Khalil Al-Hussari and Manshawi, wallahi, I don't, subhanallah, haqiqatan, Mahmood Khalil Al-Hussari and Manshawi and these great imams of the Quran, when you have them, why would you ever wanna listen to it? Or somebody else? Or why would you wanna listen to music, la shaq? Okay, this was an interesting one for me.

I remember when you first suggested the topic, and this is actually, most of the times, I actually suggest a topic for the hot seat, but this is one that you came up with, and I kind of looked at you and said, yeah, we can do like a 30, 45-minute discussion. You know, we've had a couple of longer episodes. I didn't even realize this was a discussion until I really looked into it, and it shouldn't be a discussion.

It shouldn't at all, and you made that very clear on the podcast itself. You brought many, many ayat from the Quran, and not your understanding of those ayat, but the understanding of the companions about what certain words mean. You then brought many, many evidences from the Sunnah.

I think the strongest one being the fact that music was actually categorized with things like alcohol, zina, and silk for men, which are clearly haram, and everybody would agree they're haram, and the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, said there will be a time where people from my ummah will make these things halal, and then finally, you even brought ijma' as if the Quran and the Sunnah alone aren't enough. You brought ijma' from 30 different scholars that clearly and categorically said music is haram. You did, to be fair, at the start of the podcast, and again, I do recommend, like I have been doing throughout this discussion, anybody who wants to get a more detailed view, go to the main episode, because the summary they've just seen is exactly that, it's a very brief summary.

You did categorize music into three different types, the permissible music, the impermissible music, and music where people use it to get closer to Allah, which, of course, isn't innovation in the religion, and therefore, by default, that's also impermissible. Yeah, I really didn't realize that there was even this discussion going on, but I looked into, and we never mention names on the hot seat, but there's certain people that I normally go to who talk about these things, and they would bring their statements forward, try to bring their evidences forward. Even in the Arab world, it's quite popular.

I wouldn't say quite popular, but there are some individuals who try and push the view that music is permissible. But I think the job that you did, really, and you spoke about ijma' al-sukuti, and dalalat al-iqtiran, and all of these terms that anybody who wants to benefit from, they can go to the main episode. Anything that you'd like to contribute, or should we go straight into the questions? Go to the show, inshallah.

Okay. The first question I have is, what is the ruling on nasheeds? You see, the problem with the nasheeds nowadays is that it's become musical instruments are being used inside it, and they call it nasheeds. That's the first one, and that we already spoke about in the podcast of music.

If it's got musical instruments, it falls under prohibited, it becomes a music, which we already spoke about. Wa li-llahi al-hamdu wa la minna. The second part is that it is the nasheeda, sorry, the nasheed is called nasheed al-islami, where the person, nasheed al-islami, which basically the person is trying to get closer to Allah by it, and this becomes an innovation.

It's taking a path and a tariqa where the person is trying to get closer to Allah by it, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Now, we're left with, if the person's using their voice in a way that's beautiful, but it's not cutting it up in a way that it's, they're not following a rhythm. Okay.

This, inshallah ta'ala, we can't say it's haram unless the person is doing this and it's become their day dinner, the way they do things, always just doing this, and it's taken away from their remembrance of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala, it's getting in the way of the recitation of the Quran and et cetera. That makes it haram, for example. Also, if the person's using their mouth, like in, it is, tushbihu sawt al-alat al-musiqiyah, but it resembles the music instruments.

Yeah, that's very common, yeah. Like, for example, beatboxing, for example, or even when you hear it, somebody in the back is just making noise that is called an acapella. Acapella, I think, is when there's no background noise at all, it's just a person either singing or talking, but I think it's very common because a lot of people, they have these nasheeds, which they sound just like music, but they'll say a message at the start, no musical instruments were used or something like this.

This is kind of what you're talking about, where the voice is used, but it sounds very, very similar to music. But some people, they get, they take it, they put it in the computer, it's their voice, like in, and then there are no instruments that was used, but the voice gets put. Auto-tune.

Auto-tune. Auto-tune, right? Yeah, that's what you're talking about, yeah. So, all of this, it's musical instruments.

It's all musical instruments. Technology has evolved, correct? Those types are not allowed, and when you look at the kalam of the ulama, you realize that their conditioning of it is number one, there is nothing haram in your vocabulary that you're using. The second one is, there isn't no musical instrument.

Number three is, your mouth and your sound that's coming out of your mouth, it doesn't emit, doesn't resemble the musical instruments. Number four is, it shouldn't be your norms every time, this is who you are, as some of them call themselves, nasheed artists. This is not permissible as well, because it takes you away from the recitation of the Quran, calling the people to Allah Ta'ala, good, righteous actions.

Number five is, it shouldn't be women who are standing in front of men who are reading it. Women's voices, for example. Shouldn't be that.

Also, the passage should stay away from words which are raqeeqah, words which are fitnah for the people, which kind of resembles the fussaq, the kind of ways that they talk. The person also should stay away from pictures that some people put in front of their cassettes and things like that, which cause muharramat and things like that. Scholars mention those shurut, those conditions, which you can take from the kalam of the ulema.

If all of those are not there, and it's also not trying to get closer to Allah by it, then inshallah Ta'ala it should, because it can't be a form of da'wah. The means of da'wah, we already spoke about it, it's talking fiya, it's closed, you can't do da'wah through anashid. And that's why a lot of people call it anashid al-islamiyah, they call it al-islamiyah, because they want to get closer to Allah.

No, no, we don't believe. You get closer to Allah by doing this. Okay, barakallahu feekum.

The next question is, what about music, and this is, again, something that's very popular unfortunately, what about music in the background of documentaries, or nature shows, or what's, again, quite common, a YouTube tutorial will have music in the background, so the listener, or the watcher, is not intending to listen to music, they're trying to get the benefit of the tutorial, or the documentary, but there happens to be music in the background. I mean, remember when you spoke about the word sama'a, hearing something, and istima'a? Yeah, I do, yeah. We mentioned that, Ibn Taymiyyah used that concept, you're walking somewhere, and there's music playing in the background, but you're just talking to someone, you can't really hear it.

Your aim is not to listen to the music, you're listening to your friend's conversation, you don't even know this is playing. That, you're not gonna be held accountable for it. shakka wa la rayb, al waraa, and a deen is to go and not stay there, but you're not gonna be held accountable, because you're not listening, okay, you can only listen to it when you stop the conversation with your friend, and you listen to it, and at times we're like that, we walk into a place, we're just preoccupied with other things in our minds, we're on the phone, and we don't even know this place's music, until somebody sometimes points it out, and says, you didn't know there was music, Allah, then you realise it.

That one we said already, there's no sin on you. Like in documentary that has the music, you have to actually listen to the music. Because you're trying to listen to the words of the documentary, so you're actually using your ear to, you're actually listening, yeah, I see what you're saying.

That's different to being in a restaurant where you're talking or you're eating, and the objective is not listening, it's just talking and eating, okay, I'm with you. Correct. So that is not permissible.

It's not permissible for a person to listen to a documentary that has music in it. Okay. The next question is, you mentioned on the podcast that even reciting the Quran in an overly melodious tone is not permissible.

A lot of people are really kind of, they want some clarification on this point. To what extent, what do you mean by an extremely melodious tone, and how do you reconcile this with a hadith that encourages us to recite the Quran beautifully? You see, the hadith that you're referring to is the hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari where the Prophet shallallahu alaihi wasallam said, ليس منا من لم يتغنى بالقرآن He's not from amongst us, the one who does not beautify his voice with the Quran. So what we have to understand is, there are two types when it comes to reciting the Quran.

There are people who recite the Quran, طبيعة الإنسان This is who he is. He's got a beautiful voice. When he recites it, penetrates the hearts.

And it's just natural. He hasn't studied any science for this. He hasn't gone to any musical school.

He hasn't. He's naturally a beautiful reciter. When he recites the Quran, it's just a beautiful recitation.

It's beautiful when you hear it, it penetrates the hearts. That is permissible. And that definitely goes under the hadith of the Prophet shallallahu alaihi wasallam, ليس منا من لم يتغنى بالقرآن All natural.

There's a second type which we find, which is that the person, his recitation of the Quran or his reading of the Quran is in accordance to musical rhythms and beats. It's in line with that. And for you to actually, so they say when you're talking about adab, for example, you need to read it like this.

When you come to Jannah, read it like this. Like a science or something. Yeah.

You know, it's a particular science structure behind it. And it's actually called maqamat. Okay.

You go and you study it and you learn it. And many of the big Quran that you see actually did study this. Abdul Basit, Abdul Samad, and Hussari even as well.

All of them, they study this. They go and they study this. So when they recite, Hussari, I heard after that he repented and he left all of this.

So it's not permissible. This is qawa'id principles that's taken from music. Okay.

And it's prohibited and it's haram and a person should stay away from it. And great scholars have spoken about this. Great imams of our time.

The qurra' of this time even who have given fatwas, the impermissibility. Aziz Mubaz gave a fatwa on that issue. And now we even have it, subhanAllah, some people who use, they computerize their recitation now.

The qurra'an. The qurra'an one gets, so it goes under and it gets, and if the voice has been crisp and it's just been cleansed from any, you know, your lips and everything, that's fine. But this one's auto-tune and inna lillah wa inna ila raj'un.

So this is not permissible and it's not allowed. The person should fear Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala not to play with the book of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala in that way. The last question I have on the music podcast regarding the issue of ijma'a al-sukuti.

And that is basically when there's a view that is held by a companion for example and it's become so prevalent and it's been so widespread across a number of different people, a number of different generations and nobody held a view other than it. Nobody affirmed it verbally but nobody held a view other than it. It's ijma'a al-sukuti.

And that is the deleel, you know, we discussed that on the podcast. The questioner is asking are there not reports from companions such as Abdullah ibn Zubair and Hassan ibn Thabit listening to music? Hassan ibn Thabit. Yeah.

Abdullah ibn Zubair radiallahu ta'ala anhu Imam al-Haramayn and Ibn Abid Dam both transmitted that that Abdullah ibn Zubair for example he had jawarin awwadat that he had slave girls that used to read for him. Ibn Umar entered onto him and he saw this and he had musical instruments and stuff like that. And he said to him yaa hadha yaa sahibu rasul ilayhi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam this first of all just to simplify it for the people where is the chain for it? al-isnadu min al-deenu walaw li al-isnadu laqada man sha'a man sha'a Where is the chain for this? Where is the sanad? That Abdullah ibn Zubair radiallahu ta'ala plus Abdullah ibn Umar's statement regarding music is well known it's established radiallahu ta'ala anhu that's one.

Okay. So there's no chain for that one. As for Hassan ibn Thabit radiallahu ta'ala anhu then the narration when I saw it I looked at it and I checked it out it mentions in the chain of Hassan ibn Thabit's one it mentions bi annu ruqisa lahum fil lahwi fil a'rasi the ta'bir of the sahabi was ruqsa was given to us for lahw fil a'rasi in the weddings.

So, we already spoke about weddings and when somebody's coming back from a journey — not only for people to sing for him and things like that — we said this falls into the permissible type, and we already discussed it. But here, the point that really touched me is the expression of the companion, where he said:

"رُخِّصَ لَنَا" (rukhiṣa lanā) — “A concession was given to us.”

This term, rukhiṣa lanā, if you look at the words of the uṣūliyyīn (the scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh — principles of jurisprudence), like for example, al-Faqīh Abū Muḥammad al-Dishtī al-Ḥalafiyyūh, he says in his book "النهي عن الرقص والسماع" (al-Nahyu ʿan al-Raqṣ wa al-Samāʿ — The Prohibition of Dancing and Listening to Music), he mentions:

"قولك رُخِّصَ في الغناء في العرس يدل على تحريم الغناء في الأصل، ثم جاءت الرخصة في العرس لمعنى لا تعقله ولا تميّزه." “Your saying: 'It was permitted in singing at weddings' is evidence that singing was originally prohibited. Then, a concession was given in weddings for a reason you do not comprehend or distinguish.”

So the phrase rukhiṣa lanā (a concession was given to us) implies that it was haram (prohibited) before, and now a concession has been granted.

Al-Ghazālī, in his book "al-Mustaṣfā", Volume 1, page 97 or 98, says:

"ما أباحه في الأصل من الأكل والشرب لا يسمى رخصة، ويُسمّى تناول الميتة رخصة." “What Allah permitted in its origin — like eating and drinking — is not called a concession (rukhsah). But eating carrion (a dead animal) out of necessity is called a concession.”

So something that was originally permissible isn’t called a rukhsah. But when something that was prohibited becomes permitted under necessity, that’s what is properly called rukhsah.

Ibn Ḥazm, in his book "al-Iḥkām", mentions:

"لا تكون لفظة الرخصة إلا عن شيء تقدم التحذير منه." “The word rukhsah cannot be used except for something that was previously warned against (i.e., prohibited).”

So rukhsah can only be applied to something that was originally haram, and then the ruling changed under specific circumstances.

In reality, the evidence that some people are trying to use actually backfires on them — because of the term rukhiṣa used in the narration.

Okay, let’s move on to the next podcast.

This was when we spoke about the issue of niqāb, and whether it is obligatory or not. Let’s play a short clip to remind the viewers what we spoke about.

The differences here are not about whether a woman can wear tight clothing — everyone agrees that’s not allowed. The difference among scholars is regarding the niqāb — is it obligatory or not?

I strongly hold the opinion, after research, and after looking deeply into the issue, I sincerely believe that the woman should cover her face. It’s an obligation — she must.

Allah subḥānahu wa taʿālā (glorified and exalted is He) says:

"وَإِذَا سَأَلْتُمُوهُنَّ مَتَاعًا فَاسْأَلُوهُنَّ مِن وَرَاءِ حِجَابٍ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَطْهَرُ لِقُلُوبِكُمْ وَقُلُوبِهِنَّ" “And when you ask them [the wives of the Prophet] for anything, ask them from behind a veil. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts.” (Surah al-Aḥzāb, 33:53)

Then there’s the other verse where Allah says:

"يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ" “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the believing women to draw their cloaks (jilbābs) over themselves.”

This, of course, is a means and a way for the woman not to be harmed.

ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

"أمر الله نساء المؤمنين إذا خرجن من بيوتهن لحاجة أن يغطين وجوههن من فوق رؤوسهن بالجلباب." “Allah commanded the believing women, when they go out of their homes for a need, to cover their faces from above their heads with the jilbāb.”

This is a very powerful point that I want, in shāʾ Allāh taʿālā, to be taken on board.

Then there’s the verse:

"وَالْقَوَاعِدُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ اللَّاتِي لَا يَرْجُونَ نِكَاحًا فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَن يَضَعْنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيْرَ مُتَبَرِّجَاتٍ بِزِينَةٍ ۖ وَأَن يَسْتَعْفِفْنَ خَيْرٌ لَّهُنَّ ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ" “And as for the women past childbearing age who do not expect marriage, there is no blame upon them for putting aside their outer garments without displaying adornment. But to modestly refrain is better for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Surah al-Nūr, 24:60)

Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, in his tafsīr of this verse, mentions that the woman who cannot have children anymore because of old age — this woman is permitted to remove her outer garments.

Now, here’s the issue: if someone says this does not refer to the niqāb and the gloves, then what does it mean? Are you saying she’s going to take off her clothes?!

The first hadith I’m going to bring is probably the most clear and the most direct of them. It’s the hadith of Aisha in the Sunan of Abi Dawud. Asmaa bint Abi Bakr—the daughter of Aisha (رضي الله عنها)—came in front of the Prophet ﷺ, and he corrected her dress. He said:

"O Asmaa, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her body parts except this and this." And when he said “except this,” he pointed to his face, and in this he pointed to his hands.

This is a clear-cut statement—unlike some of the quotes that you brought in, the ayat and the interpretations and understandings of this and that—this is a clear-cut statement from the Messenger ﷺ himself, that the woman can leave the face and the hands uncovered.

Also, the hadith of the woman at the Eid salah, and her cheek being shown—so this is the majority opinion, and how far we’ve been taken by women who narrated this hadith. Again, who narrated it? Bukhari and Muslim, right? Maybe Bukhari and Muslim.

Why are all those narrations only [about] Hajj? Marriage? You know, all situations that we already mentioned?

I think this is the first time that we did a topic on The Hot Seat where there is a genuine difference of opinion. Great, noble scholars have taken both sides. Some people say the niqab is wajib (obligatory), and some people say that it’s recommended.

And we kind of broke the podcast down into different phases. We first spoke about whether hijab or niqab is a cultural thing, or whether it’s an act of worship.

It was also very relevant at the time—if you remember, the Mufti of Chechnya had just come out with a statement saying that the niqab is a Wahhabi Saudi Arabian cultural practice.

After we went through that, we discussed the different evidences that both sides of the table bring forward. On the scholars—you know, you took the position that the niqab is wajib (obligatory), and I took the position that it’s not obligatory, but it’s still highly recommended and encouraged for our Muslim sisters.

And I think—I think I shared with you—that this is the first time I looked into this issue. And having read the research that I did leading up to the podcast, I thought Shaykh al-Albani came strong, like he normally does. I really thought that. I was really believing—like, “this is very, very strong.”

After the podcast, I kind of got a glimpse into the other side—the one that says niqab is wajib—and I went back, did a bit more additional research, looked into the ayat, had a conversation with you as well offline, and now I’m like—I think it’s very, very clear to me personally that niqab is wajib.

So, an interesting discussion—probably the longest podcast to date that we’ve had.

Let’s go on to the questions, in shaa Allah.

The first question is:

There was a particular hadith in there—the hadith of Aisha, talking about Asmaa bint Abi Bakr—and Shaykh al-Albani believed this hadith to be authentic. And for him, it’s very clear. I think the Prophet ﷺ is saying that the woman has to be covered except the hands and the face—very, very clear wording.

You actually—and not just you but other scholars as well—have weakened the hadith.

The questioner asked: “Many times on The Hot Seat podcast, you’ve said Shaykh al-Albani authenticated this hadith, Shaykh al-Albani authenticated this hadith. Why now, when a hadith goes against what you’re pushing, do you say that Shaykh al-Albani got it wrong on this one?”

First of all, from Shaykh Nasir (رحمه الله), from his tapes and from his works, we learned not to blindly follow anybody. He taught us that.

When I say he taught us that—from his works. If you read Shaykh Nasir’s works—and I think I’ve read nearly everything that Shaykh Nasir has written—I’ve learned this concept of not being fanatic for anyone, الحمد لله. And it’s helped me a lot.

I don’t base my religion on individuals. And where a particular person is critiqued, I like to know why and what’s the proof. If you take it—if you bring it—I’ll take it from you. And Shaykh Nasir proved that in his works (رحمه الله تعالى). So, I’d actually be following him by doing what he encouraged us to do and educated us to do.

And anyone who reads the first portion of his kitab, Sifat Salat al-Nabi, the beginning of it—when he speaks about the statements of the A’immah al-Arba’ah (the four Imams)—Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi’i, and Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal—what they said regarding blind following, you would see how Shaykh Nasir (رحمه الله) pushes for the idea of following the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and not being fanatic about people.

So I still believe I’m following Shaykh al-Albani in that regard.

Secondly, every hadith that Shaykh Nasir grades and authenticates—I can’t always check all of them. I don’t check every single hadith grading of Shaykh al-Albani. Sometimes I just stick to what he says (رحمه الله تعالى), and I stick to it.

But if there’s a mas’alah (issue) where I believe Shaykh Nasir (رحمه الله تعالى) may not necessarily be correct, and he grades a hadith to be sahih, and that hadith goes against… 

My whole particular view that I have is that I'd have to see the authentication. I take a step further, and I look into the hadith with him—so I look at the view of the grading of the hadith, how he did this one. That makes sense. And if I find that his grading is sahih (authentic), I’ve changed my opinion, because I now have a dalil (evidence) in front of me. But there are issues which I don't agree with Shaykh al-Albani رحمه الله تعالى (may Allah have mercy upon him). The issue of tark as-salah (abandoning the prayer), for example—I don't agree with him. The issue of the niqab—I don't agree with the Shaykh. And there are many other issues. Like the issue of al-lihya (the beard): if it reaches a hand’s fist—fistful—yeah, if the beard reaches a fist, Shaykh al-Albani said it's wajib (obligatory) for the person to cut it. If they don't cut it, they're sinning. I think that's a very strange opinion. And there are many other issues like that, that Shaykh Nasir رحمه الله gave fatwa (legal ruling) on, that I don't see how. The issue of fasting yawm as-sabt (Saturday)—yeah, Saturday—the way he looked at the hadith and everything, I also don't agree with him on that issue. There are a handful of issues that I don't agree with him on. But in general, he's a great Imam that I admire—rahimahullah rahmatan wasi‘ah (may Allah have vast mercy upon him).

Okay, a sister then asked (this is the next question):

When the Shaykh kept asserting that the statement of Asma’—her statement "when we used to cover our faces when in the state of ihram"—I kept saying, this isn’t sarih (explicit). This doesn’t prove the obligation. It could be recommended. And of course, they're going to cover their faces. She said, why did the Ustadh not mention that the asl (default ruling) in ihram is to leave the face uncovered? And we discussed that as well. So only another obligation can remove the initial obligation.

So what she's saying is: the Prophet ﷺ told the women that they can't cover their faces in ihram. Then we have narrations from Asma’ bint Abi Bakr saying that we used to cover our faces in ihram. Surely, this can't be recommended. Because if it was recommended and obligatory, then this can't overwrite the other one. The only way is that if this is obligatory, then it can overwrite.

How do you know the question is from a male or female? I think the username—something, I think from memory.

So the first thing I think the sister fell short in the question is that the Prophet ﷺ did not prohibit a person from covering their face. He just said that they can't wear niqab.

So I think that the ground that the person is arguing on—which is that the face has to be covered in the state of ihram if men come by a woman—she just can't wear a type of face covering, which is the niqab.

Yeah, so how does— You know, this question also comes up: how does someone cover without a niqab?

How can someone cover their face? The shibab (veil) — yeah, from the top. Yeah, she can do it from the top, and sometimes she can grab the side.

Yeah, exactly. Okay, great.

The next one is: Is it obligatory for a woman to cover her hands? Ay naam (yes, indeed), we mentioned the general hadith: "Al-mar’atu ‘awrah" — "The woman is ‘awrah" (i.e., her whole body is to be covered). So her whole entire body is ‘awrah—just to cover it.

And so the whole podcast was about the face and the hands, and that's what we were trying to prove—that the woman has to cover her face and also her hands. Ay naam.

Okay, next question is: I do not believe the niqab is wajib, but I do wear it. This is obviously coming from a sister. However, if I'm at home and sometimes my cousins come round, or even my friends who have sons—I see them as kind of my sons—I don't cover my face. Am I committing a sin? You know, is this sinful? Am I wrong for doing this?

If the sister doesn't believe the niqab to be wajib, and she's of the opinion that it's not wajib, then of course she's not sinful according to her madhhab (school of thought). From my madhhab—yes, I see her to be sinful. But from her own madhhab, she believes that it's not wajib. And I hope that she's reached that conclusion—that it's not wajib—after researching. She can't just say, "These two views—this one seems nice and applicable to my life." If she's taken that view based on that, she's a sinner.

She has to come to this conclusion—of course she's a sinner if she has the ability to research.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. So if she can research and look into the issue, and then come to that conclusion that, "You know what, I don't actually believe—genuinely, I don't believe—that the niqab is wajib. I've researched it. I've looked into the issue. The arguments are not strong to me."

If she's reached it from that base and that ground, then of course no—she can uncover her face in shaa’ Allah, keeping in mind she can’t beautify herself, because both parties agree upon that. There’s no dispute in that matter. She can’t put in anything that will beautify herself and attract others, etc.

Okay, final question on this episode: I don’t understand how Ustadh Abdur Rahman believes that if the husband or father thinks it’s wajib for the woman to wear niqab, but the woman doesn’t believe it’s wajib, he cannot and should not enforce it on them because there’s a difference of opinion. If you’re a husband or a father, you are responsible for your women—to make sure that they follow what is wajib. And as a man, you’re supposed to have ghirah (protective jealousy) for your women, and not want their beauty to be seen by non-mahrams (unlawful men).

Before I go into the question, I’m not a person who encourages people to always refer to me as Ustadh Abdur Rahman or Shaykh Abdur Rahman. People just call me by my name, and I’m happy with that. And so when people use the word "Ustadh Abdur Rahman"—we’ve come to accept "Ustadh" now because "Ustadh" is just a teacher. You can be a disbeliever and still be an Ustadh—because you’re just a teacher.

Definitely, not the term "Shaykh"—shouldn’t be used for me or anyone like me. Shouldn’t be using those terms—those terms are very big and important. Should give it to people who are senior in age, righteousness in actions, senior people.

Okay. But now Ustadh has just become one of those words that everybody just takes on board. May Allah give us sincerity and truthfulness in our knowledge.

Coming to the question: So the person is saying: Why are you saying that? Why can’t a man enforce niqab, or enforce his woman to wear the niqab if he believes it’s wajib and they don’t? But surely, it’s the man’s responsibility to make sure his women are doing what is wajib.

The scholars, when it comes to the issue of difference of opinion, they divide it into two masaa’il (issues)—which are ikhtilaf (differences of opinion). It’s two types. There are masaa’il which are ikhtilaf sa’igh (valid/acceptable differences of opinion). And there is a second type of difference of opinion, which is ghayru sa’igh (not valid).

Wa li dhalika (and for that reason), this statement that many people use: la inkar fi masaa’il al-khilaf—"There is no inkar (rebuke) in matters of difference of opinion"—that’s wrong. That statement is wrong.

You can’t say la inkar fi masaa’il al-khilaf—but you can say la inkar fi masaa’il al-ijtihad (there is no rebuke in matters of legitimate scholarly effort). Because masaa’il al-ijtihad is a valid difference of opinion. It’s the type of ikhtilaf which is acceptable.

For example, we have khilaf (disagreement) with the Ashaa’irah. That’s not a valid difference of opinion. We have a difference of opinion with the Raafidah regarding Abu Bakr and Umar—that’s not a valid difference of opinion. Do you understand my point?

Yeah, totally—wa li dhalik—you even mentioned it yourself: all of the series that we’ve had on the podcast are not valid differences of opinion, correct? Like, for example, apart from the niqab issue—that’s it.

So when it comes to issues where there is a valid difference of opinion, the scholars mention a qāʿidah (principle): "Lā inkāra fī masā’il al-ijtihād" —there is no condemnation in matters of ijtihād (scholarly discretion).

So, for example, imposing on your wife to wear the niqab when she doesn't believe it to be wājib—she’s done her research, looked into the matter, and come to the conclusion that it’s not obligatory—then for you to come and impose it on her kind of goes against this principle of lā inkāra fī masā’il al-ijtihād.

You can teach her, you can educate her, you can discuss it with her, you can go back and forth on it.

Also, the Prophet ﷺ didn’t rebuke either party when he said: "Lā yuṣalliyanna aḥadukum ʿaṣra illā fī Banī Qurayẓah" —or as he said ﷺ.

This was a mas'alah ijtihādiyyah—a matter open to interpretation. Some companions delayed the prayer, others didn’t. But the Prophet ﷺ didn’t rebuke either party, because they understood the hadith in different ways.

Also, the statement of Imam Ahmad, raḥimahullāh, as mentioned by Ibn Mufliḥ in al-Ādāb al-Sharʿiyyah, and also in his Furūʿ, where Imam Ahmad said: "Lā yanbaghī lil-faqīh an yaḥmila al-nāsa ʿalā madhhabih" —It is not befitting for a jurist to force people to follow his own madhhab (legal school).

You shouldn’t force your fiqh view on other people when there is a valid difference of opinion.

So what is a valid difference of opinion?

A valid difference of opinion is an opinion that does not go against the Qur'an, the Sunnah, or ijmāʿ (consensus). Generally speaking, issues that are ijtihādiyyah—based on reasoning and analogy—don’t go against the Kitāb, Sunnah, or Ijmāʿ. They also don’t go against Qiyās Jali (clear analogy). They may go against Qiyās Khafī—the more subtle type of analogy.

These are matters with iḥtimālāt—possibilities and legitimate interpretations.

For example:

• Did the Prophet ﷺ see Allah? Valid difference of opinion.
• Do the dead hear? Valid difference of opinion.
• Does touching your private part break your wudu? Valid difference of opinion.

There are many such issues that the scholars mention are valid to differ on. But we don’t go around causing havoc, dispute, or unnecessary argumentation. We can still discuss them, though.

Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that these kinds of issues can be researched, discussed back and forth with someone—as long as it's done in a friendly and respectful environment. No one should take things personally, because it’s a valid difference of opinion.

When you make such matters hard and cause division, you fall under the verse:

"Wa lā takūnū ka-alladhīna tafarraqū wa-akhtalafū min baʿdi mā jā’ahum al-bayyināt…" "Amā man farraqū dīnahum wa-kānū shiyaʿan, kullu ḥizbin bimā ladayhim fariḥūn"

This verse clearly warns against division and disunity among Muslims—especially when it’s unnecessary.

There are many great scholars who’ve spoken about this exact issue:

• Ibn Taymiyyah, in Bayān al-Dalīl fī Buṭlān al-Taḥlīl, pp. 210–211
• Also in his Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, vol. 20, p. 207
• Ibn al-Qayyim, in Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn, vol. 3, p. 300
• Ibn Qudāmah, and Ibn Mufliḥ in al-Ādāb al-Sharʿiyyah, vol. 1, p. 186
• Imam al-Nawawī, in Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, where he says: "Laysa lil-muftī wa-lā al-qāḍī an yataʿarraḍ ʿalā man khālafahū idhā lam yukhālif naṣṣan aw ijmāʿan aw qiyāsan jalīyyan." —The Mufti or Qadi has no right to object to someone who disagrees with him, as long as he does not go against a clear text, consensus, or clear analogy.
• Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, in al-Durar al-Saniyyah, vol. 4, p. 8
• al-Shawkānī, in al-Sayl al-Jarrār, vol. 4, p. 588
• And Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn, in his Liqa’ al-Bāb al-Maftūḥ (middle volumes), where he expands on this same issue.

So this isn’t something new. These are seven great Imāms of Islam who all addressed this matter clearly.

Now let’s move on to the final podcast, the one we just did last week.

We thought, again—we like to address contemporary issues, and this one was timely because it's the end of the year, around Christmas and New Year. So we decided to talk about whether Muslims are allowed to imitate disbelievers. And if they are, then what kind of conditions must be fulfilled?

Let’s play a short clip just to remind the viewers what we spoke about regarding imitating the disbelievers, and we’re going to find out In shāʾ Allāh— Is it allowed for Muslims to do this? And if so, then are there rules and regulations that Muslims must abide by when doing this?

In shāʾ Allāh, there are many reasons why this topic is very important.

If you look at the waq‘ of the Muslims—the reality of the Muslims today—you'll find, you'll see, that the issue of imitating the non-Muslims is so high and so great. A lot of Muslims are imitating the non-Muslims. They're following the Christians, the Jews, the Atheists. Social media has now become that place where you go even if you want to, you know, do something. If you want to dress in a certain way—social media—you take it. There's someone on Instagram, or someone on Twitter, or someone on Facebook, who you'll take as a role model, and you'll follow. And they will set you guidelines of what to do and what not to do.

Secondly, it's to clarify the truth. What I mean by that is: in everything Allah has commanded, there's always a people who go to extremes in exaggeration, and there's always people who are extreme in negligence. There's always ifrat and tafrit. And Islam always propagates and encourages us to be on the middle path. The middle path is what Allah and His Messenger say. It's not what you and I feel is the middle path.

Someone could say, for example: there's a woman who's wearing niqab and everything, and she's wearing jilbab. And another woman is wearing trousers. And there's one who's wearing a mini-skirt. The one says, "I'm wearing trousers—I'm in the middle. I'm the middle path. I'm not extreme like the one who's wearing a mini-skirt, and I'm not extreme like the one who's wearing a niqab and jilbab and blacked out. I'm in the middle. I'm wearing trousers—I'm still there."

Now we say: what is the middle? It is set by who? Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and His Messenger.

Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says in the Qur'an:

"Muhammad, if you follow these people’s path بعد ما جاءك من العلم (after knowledge has come to you—which is the revelation) ما لك من الله من ولي ولا واق (you are not going to get any support or aid from anyone)."

And Allah tabaraka wa ta'ala says:

"We have made you upon a legislation, فاتبعها (so follow it)."

And before that, Allah mentions:

"وآتينا بني إسرائيل الكتاب والحكم والنبوة" (We gave the Children of Israel the Book, the rule, and the Prophethood). "ورزقناهم من الطيبات" (We gave them so many good things).

But Allah is telling Muhammad: you, we have placed you upon a legislation—you have a path.

Also, Allah says in another ayah:

"Do not be like the people of the Scripture before you."

Don't be like them. Allah is telling the Prophet.

It goes back to the custom and the ‘urf, and the ‘urf is not determined by one person’s feelings. ‘Urf is determined by what the community sees.

If I walked in today—if a non-Muslim came walking to you right now with a bijtani ‘idhal, you know, all of that—what would you say to him? As-salamu ‘alaykum. He never said anything to you. He never spoke to you. Just by seeing him—are you there?

I remember one time it was Halloween—they knocked on my door. And one of them was wearing that as a costume. And I said as-salamu ‘alaykum. He was a Muslim! Mi za‘u now Muslim? "Trick or treat!" And he just closed the door.

The point I'm trying to come to is that clothing—ya‘ni—that’s unique for a people makes you… people start to believe you're part of those people.

Eid matters—set on stone. What do you mean by Eid? Eid means celebration. Celebrations and festivals for Muslims are set on stone.

In other words, the Prophet ﷺ, when he came to the city of Madinah, and he saw the companions, and they told him about their celebrations that they had—the Prophet ﷺ said to them:

"إن الله أبدلكم..." Allah has exchanged for you—subhanahu wa ta‘ala—Allah has what? He has exchanged for you your celebrations.

"Changed for you" means all of it, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned rahimahullah ta‘ala, that everything that you are currently celebrating—all of it—has been eradicated and it has been changed with what? It’s been changed with these Eids: Eid al-Adha and Eid al-Fitr.

So we tackled this issue quite comprehensively—I think the final video ended at around 3 hours.

We talked about imitating them in their clothing, in their celebrations—even to the granular detail of haircuts—and even talking about their language and usage of slang.

So I've got 4 questions for you from the audience for this one.

Question 1:

What is the evidence to say that all celebrations are religious, even though they are celebrations without any religious elements and people don’t intend to come closer to Allah by those celebrations? For example: National Day, Mother’s Day, Birthdays?

The ‘Ulama—Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyyah, the greats: al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Nawawi, al-Bayhaqi—all of them stated:

"الأعياد من الشرائع لا من العادات" (Celebrations are from the Sharī‘ah, not from customs.)

They are religious issues. They are not from the ‘ādāt (norms) or reoccurring traditions, we should say.

Ibn ‘Abbas—may Allah be pleased with him and his father—when he came to the ayah:

"لكل أمة جعلنا منسكاً هم ناسكوه"

He said: "Eidan" He said "Eid". Allah made for every people an Eid.

So that shows you that the concept of Eid is a Shar‘i issue. Allah sanctioned it. Eid is celebrations, festivals—recurring. It comes also yearly. "This time of the year, I'm going to celebrate your birthday"—ḥarām.

The reason is because: "الأعياد من الشرائع لا من العادات"

Also, a few other evidences that show it as well is the hadith in Imam Abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i who narrate the hadith which said:

"كان لأهل الجاهلية يومان في كل سنة يلعبون فيهما" (The people of Jahiliyyah had two days in every year in which they used to play.)

So when the Prophet ﷺ came to Madinah—the city of Madinah—he said to them:

"كان لكم يومان تلعبون فيهما" You used to have two days you used to enjoy yourselves and have fun.

"قد أبدلكم الله بهما ما هو خير منهما" Allah has changed it—subḥānahu wa ta‘ālā—with that which is better than it: "يوم الفطر ويوم الأضحى"

Now shāhid—I want you to ponder here with me. And I want the people watching this to also ponder with me:

If it’s a custom and it's norms, why is the Prophet ﷺ sanctioning something for them? Why doesn’t he let them have it if it’s norms and it’s customs?

And the Prophet ﷺ didn’t say to them, "I've now come—you all have to eat this food." He didn’t say that.

The Prophet ﷺ—it wasn’t connected to their religion. These celebrations—unrestrictedly—they just made it up. The Prophet ﷺ changed it.

 The fact that he tampered with this or he changed this — صلى الله عليه وسلم — it shows you that this is a matter of religion and not a matter of norms.

Also, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه:

إِنَّ لِكُلِّ قَوْمٍ عِيدًا وَهَذَا عِيدُنَا "Indeed, every nation has its Eid, and this is our Eid."

Al-Imam al-Bukhari narrated — Bukhari and Muslim both narrated — in the hadith of Aisha, which goes with the ayah:

لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ جَعَلْنَا مَنْسَكًا هُمْ نَاسِكُوهُ "To every nation We have appointed religious rites which they perform."

When the Prophet said to Abu Bakr: "Every nation has their Eid, and this is our Eid."

ولذلك الشيخ ابن عثيمين رحمه الله تعالى — he said:

تخصيصُ الأيام أو الشهور أو السنوات "Specifying a day, or a month, or a year..."

He said, restricting a day or a month or a year with an Eid:

مَرْجِعُهُ إِلَى الشَّرْعِ وَلَيْسَ مِنَ الْعَادَةِ "It goes back to the Shar’iah, not to custom."

If you want to give a day in the year significance, or you want to give a month significance, or a particular year — "it's a special year for me" — you take it from the Shari’ah and not from the norms of the people.

ولذلك ابن رجب الحنبلي authored a book in this issue, just to show us the days which are significant, the months which are significant. He called it لطائف المعارف.

أبو بكر السني wrote a book called عَمَلُ الْيَوْمِ وَاللَّيْلَةِ — what the Prophet used to do every day and every night, and the times which are significant.

Why? Why is he writing it? Everyone can just do what they want?

No — in Islam, you are told what you can do at this time, and you’re told what you can't do at that time, especially when it comes to celebrations and things like that.

Okay, the next question is: what is the evidence — and I think this is the context to this question — you mentioned on the podcast that imitating the disbelievers, even if you don’t intend to imitate them, is still haram.

What is the evidence to say that even if we don’t intend to imitate, it will still count as imitation? Because I heard from a prominent speaker’s lecture that there is a difference between تشبُّه and تشابُه.

Very important that you understand this. Great scholars — ابن القيم رحمه الله mentions this in his book, ابن تيمية رحمه الله mentions it in his book, and الذهبي رحمه الله تعالى mentions it too.

May Allah have mercy on them — these three great Imams — and other scholars. These three should be enough for anybody. But I'm going to give you the evidence for it.

They mention قاعدة — a principle — that you do not condition a person's intent or motive when it comes to imitating the non-Muslims. We don't condition it.

And there is evidence that supports them. I’ll give you just a few — two in fact.

The first one is the statement of Allah which we mentioned in the podcast, where Allah Ta’ala said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَقُولُوا رَاعِنَا وَقُولُوا انظُرْنَا وَاسْمَعُوا وَلِلْكَافِرِينَ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

"O you who believe, do not say: رَاعِنَا, but say: انْظُرْنَا, and listen. And for the disbelievers is a painful punishment."

Ibn Kathir, a great scholar, the student of Ibn Taymiyyah, said:

نَهَى اللَّهُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْ يَتَشَبَّهُوا بِالْكُفَّارِ فِي مَقَالِهِمْ وَفِعَالِهِمْ "Allah prohibited the believers from imitating the disbelievers in their speech and their actions."

وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْيَهُودَ كَانُوا يُعْنُونَ مِنَ الْكَلَامِ فِيهِ تَوْرِيَةٌ لِمَا يَقْصِدُونَ مِنَ التَّنقِيصِ "The Jews used to use words that carried hidden meanings to insult and belittle the Prophet."

They would say something to the Prophet ﷺ but hide behind تورية — indirect or ambiguous wording. For example, they used the word رَاعِنَا.

The word رَاعِنَا in Arabic means "hear us" or "pay attention to us" — so it's not an insult in Arabic.

But in Hebrew, which is their language, it is an insult — it's تنقِيص — to degrade someone.

So they were using that word to try to put the Prophet down ﷺ.

Now, if you reflect and analyze: the Sahabah — رضي الله عنهم — when they were saying رَاعِنَا, were they intending to put the Prophet down? No, they weren’t.

The Jews, on the other hand, were using it in a bad way.

Allah knows that the intention of the believers was good, they were using it sincerely — "Ya Rasulullah, listen to us, look at us" — but the Jews were using it sarcastically or mockingly.

But بغض النظر عن النية — regardless of the intention — Allah still prohibited the believers from saying it.

That’s what’s taken from the ayah.

Another evidence that proves the concept of لا يُشتَرط القَصد أو النِّيَّة في التشبُّه is the famous hadith of ‘Amr ibn ‘Anbasah al-Sulami, which Imam Muslim narrated in his Sahih.

The Prophet ﷺ said:

"صَلِّ صَلَاةَ الصُّبْحِ، ثُمَّ أَقْصِرْ عَنِ الصَّلَاةِ حَتَّى تَطْلُعَ الشَّمْسُ حَتَّى تَرْتَفِعَ..." "Pray the Fajr prayer, then refrain from praying until the sun rises and becomes high..."

This famous hadith is a very long hadith. The Prophet ﷺ mentioned at the ending of the hadith:

"وحينئذ يسجدوا لها الكفار" "At that moment, the disbelievers will prostrate."

The disbelievers, they prostrate at this particular moment. Now we know that the believers—they're doing it for that reason. So why am I not allowed to pray at this particular time?

Sorry—the disbelievers are prostrating to the Shaytan, and they're prostrating to the Shaytan, but the believers are prostrating to Allah.

But are they still allowed to pray? Why are they not allowed to pray just because it happened at the same time? Because both of you from the outer [appearance] look the same, even though the intention was for Allah.

Another thing that Shaykh Usama Taimur really drove home in his kitab "Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim li-Mukhalafati Ashab al-Jahim"—and I encourage every student of knowledge to try to read this book—is that the outer appearance will eventually...

يعني don't ever think to yourself your outer appearance hasn't got an effect on your inner appearance.

Dressing like the non-Muslims and being like them externally will finally become your motive and your intention. It will eventually sink into your heart. So at the beginning, maybe you don’t have that intention. But eventually, it will become imitation, and doing it because you want to be like them.

So I think that’s very important we understand that.

Next question: Does the hadith “ومن تشبه بقوم فهو منهم” apply to the Muslim rulers?

This hadith:

"ومن تشبه بقوم فهو منهم" "Whoever imitates a people is from them."

...is the hadith of Abdullah ibn Umar رضي الله عنه, which comes in the narration:

"بعثت بين يدي الساعة بالسيف حتى يعبد الله وحده لا شريك له، وجعل رزقي تحت ظل رمحي، وجعل الذلة والصغار على من خالف أمري، ومن تشبه بقوم فهو منهم."

Eight great scholars have narrated this hadith:

1. Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf
2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad
3. Abd ibn Humaid
4. Tahawi
5. Abu Sa‘id ibn al-Arabi
6. Al-Harawi in Dhamm al-Kalam
7. Ibn Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq

And also Bukhari narrated it mu‘allaqan (suspended), specifically the part:

"وجعل رزقي تحت ظل رمحي، وجعل الذلة والصغار على من خالف أمري"

Also, Abu Dawud narrated the last portion:

"ومن تشبه بقوم فهو منهم"

Translation of that part for the people:

“Whoever imitates a people is from them.”

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah mentions:

"تعتبر أصلا من أصول هذه المسألة." "This is considered one of the foundational principles of this issue"—the issue of imitation.

He says this is a fundamental hadith that the entire discussion of imitating the disbelievers revolves around. It came up several times in our discussion and we discussed it in great detail.

So what you are asking is: Does the phrase "ومن تشبه بقوم فهو منهم" include the Muslim rulers? Does it apply to the ruler as well as the ruled?

In Usul al-Fiqh, scholars speak about دلالات الألفاظ—what meanings can be taken from certain words.

Shaykh Abdur Rahman Nasir al-Sa‘di wrote a small kitab in which he said:

The word "من" and "ما" indicate generalization. That is, the word "من", when used in certain structures, is a tool of generality.

For example:

• "فمن يعمل مثقال ذرة خيرًا يره"
• "ومن يتق الله يجعل له مخرجًا"
• "فمن اعتدى بعد ذلك"
• "فمن اعتدى عليكم فاعتدوا عليه بمثل ما اعتدى عليكم"

This "من" is شرطية (conditional)—and shows generalization. That is:

"Whoever does this..." → It applies to anyone and everyone.

It also comes as استفهامية (interrogative), like:

"من ذا الذي يشفع عنده إلا بإذنه" "من ذا الذي يقرض الله قرضًا حسنًا"

Also as a موصولة (relative), like:

"وله من في السماوات والأرض" "ومن عنده لا يستكبرون"

So this is عموم—generalization.

A proof that "من" shows generalization is the famous hadith narrated by Bukhari and Muslim. The Prophet ﷺ spoke of someone who takes care of a horse. If the horse leaves and drinks water elsewhere, the caretaker still gets reward. So the sahabah asked:

"What about the donkey?"

The Prophet ﷺ said:

"Nothing has been revealed to me regarding it, except the general verse:" "فمن يعمل مثقال ذرة خيرًا يره ومن يعمل مثقال ذرة شرًا يره"

So the Prophet ﷺ brought the donkey into the discussion through a verse of عموم (generality). So this proves "من" = generalization.

So when we say:

"ومن تشبه بقوم فهو منهم" "Whoever imitates a people is from them."

…it applies to the believer, it applies to the ruler, and it applies to the ruled.

"من" is from أدوات العموم Barakallahu feekum.

Final Question on this podcast: To contextualize—we spoke about language and imitating slang, for example speaking in slang. A question was asked:

Are you saying it’s haram to speak in slang?

You see, I've actually—in university—I studied linguistics. I studied applied linguistics. I did it on a BA level, and I also did it on a master's level, so it's something I studied. My dissertation was actually code-switching from one language to another. But I do look into linguistics, I do, يعني, admire the science of linguistics—especially, mainly for the science of the Arabic language. I like to learn a lot about languages, how they work, and if you study linguistics, you really can grow in the knowledge even of the Arabic language. And it's something I love—the Arabic language.

But when you look at language features they mention, you look at a language feature from a lexical perspective, you look at it from a phonological perspective, you look at it from a morphological—a phonological perspective is how you pronounce the word—and you look at it from a morphological perspective, which is a Salafi perspective. You look at it from a syntactical level of the language. When you look at slang, for example, and you observe it from those different variations—those different levels—you first of all come to, without a doubt, before you even look at that, that slang is a social dialect. It’s not a regional dialect, it’s not a country. It’s not like—it’s just a little—I mean, people who speak slang in America, it’s not the same as slang spoken in the UK. So it’s like a social dialect.

It’s people—when you look at it, speaking slang—it’s, in my humble opinion, it makes you sound less intellectual, it makes you seem uneducated, and it also can be a hindrance. If you’re trying to build connection with the people, it could be an obstacle. And a lot of the people who—the words—for me personally, from my observation, from my looking—I’m not going to go into great details of slang and where it came from, and even if the word itself is—is it right or is it wrong, what does it actually mean. The point I’m trying to say to you is the slang—I found it, that it connects—the people using slang—it connects a lot of people to a type of evil: music, killing, sinning, you know, zina, consumption of alcohol, and things like that. When you learn it, this door opens for you.

When you even look at the kitab Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim, one of the things he mentions is: do not speak the language of the disbelievers. Scholars are talking about—are you even allowed to speak English? And there’s a discussion whether you can even speak another language other than the Arabic language. And scholars are saying: can it fall under the imitation of the non-Muslims? The reason for that is because a lot of people—the shahwah comes to them from what perspective? The media, the English media, the language.

For example, when I listen to—you know—rappers and I listen to artists talking, I honestly don’t understand what they’re saying. Yeah, honestly, I don’t know what they’re saying. So this—I can’t connect with them. So when they crack a joke, I don’t know what’s happening here.

So recently I had a family member, you know, I was talking to them. He said to me, “Your clothing is drip.” Have you heard that word before? I saw it on Twitter. I saw it—someone said it on Twitter. That’s the first time I heard of it. I had to ask someone. They told me what it means. I was like, “What do you mean, drip? Are you insulting me? Are you praising me? What does it mean?”

So for me, it’s an obstacle for me to understand them. So in other words, they don’t entertain me. I don’t like watching what they’re saying because of that language barrier in slang. And I think it’s a—that you don’t know that—this type, not to mention, to be honest...

I had a linguistics teacher—his name is called Kazuya—you know, Korean teacher, in Birkbeck University. I think he’s Korean, yeah. And subhanAllah, one of the things we were talking about is—you know in linguistics, you study insults, you know, foul language, you know, insulting and everything. They study it as a language.

Oh, as a language on its own?

Yeah, why does it affect people? And they talk about it—the relationship between all of that. Some people do their dissertations on it, and we study theories regarding that. Like the point I’m trying to come to is: this concept of slang came up. So they’re very politically correct. They can’t say slang because they think if they do, it’s offensive. They won’t ever say that. But I said to my teacher, I remember—wallahi—one of the things I said to him was that: do you believe within language standards—meaning the way that a person uses a language—it can actually determine whether a person is intellectual, is educated? Can a person be looked down at just because of the language they speak?

He said: “Yeah, without a doubt.”

And even now, put slang aside—for me, even if I hear somebody speaking Amiya, they’re not educated from just speaking Amiya. When they speak Fusha and they don’t do a mistake, that’s when you say: Allahumma barik. It’s a level higher than speaking Amiya. And slang is not—it’s worse than Amiya. It’s lower than Amiya. Because Amiya is just—Amiya is just an informal way of speaking. But it’s not—everybody is speaking that way. Amiya is more like when you go to the office, there’s a language you speak which is a formal language. But when you go outside, there’s that informal way of speaking. It’s not the level of slang. Slang is actually even lower. No one uses it except the youths and youngsters. It’s restricted to them. And it’s also used by—it has a connotation, a bad connotation to it.

So I’m not saying here it’s haram. I’m not saying it’s haram. But it’s something a Muslim should stay away from. I personally wouldn’t want my child to speak in slang with me. I wouldn’t want them to speak to each other in slang at all. And I would never use slang. I don’t ever use slang with anybody. Never in my life have I ever had a conversation with someone in slang. So I might joke about a term that’s used here or there, to keep a conversation. I feel like it’s pathetic, to be honest, and it’s unnecessary—when I can get my point across in a decent, standard language.

Plus, in person I don’t even speak classic, intellectual—I just speak normal. Don’t use slang. Speak normal, and everybody will understand you, and you’ll be appreciated for what you’re saying.

That brings us to the end of our questions for today. There were two questions, by the way, that did come up quite often, but they’re going to remain hot seat secrets, and that is: where do you get your drip from? Where do you get your clothing, your headgear?

But that's going to be a hot seat secret. The other one was actually about the clock. A lot of people are really interested in the clock—where did you find this clock from?

Can I ask a third question? Are you going to stop inviting me over and bring somebody else?

Inshallah, there's going to be someone else as well, I think. I just want to kind of say, on behalf of the people really, just to thank you and to ask Allah to reward you for all the effort you put into this podcast. I personally know how much effort it takes. We've had episodes that have been 3 hours, 4 hours, 23 minutes—I think. I don't know how long we've been speaking today; maybe this is even longer than that. But I know that there's a lot of work that goes into it, and I ask the people at home to make the effort for you—to increase your knowledge, your family, everything.

If anybody's benefited from this podcast, then I ask people to ask Allah to accept it from you. And I just want to personally thank you as well for all the time that you put into it. BarakAllahu feekum.