Here is the PDF of the recent boycotting posts:
Continuing from the first post of this series.
“So now, it is not necessary/a prerequisite that [such a] warning is coupled with ostracism or boycotting in this day and age, but as for when our society is an Islamic one then all of these issues must be brought together.
Nowadays, for example, there is a very clear example [which I will give you]: the Muslim who doesn’t keep up/maintain his prayers [and thus] to whom applies the hadith which you mentioned in your [other earlier] question, “Between a person and disbelief is abandoning the prayer, whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved,” the correct, legislated expression concerning this man who I just mentioned is that he be called someone who is defiantly disobedient [a faasiq], if not a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion, it is only by way of using gentler words that he be called, ‘not practicing,’ he is a faasiq, and that disbeliever is more of a faasiq than him, so [for now] we will speak about this person and then we may be in need of talking about the one who is ever more defiantly disobedient than him, i.e., the kaafir.
This Muslim who has abandoned the prayer has left obedience to Allaah in that issue, for this reason he deserves the title of faasiq: if we warned the people against him and, along with this warning, [also] connected what I just mentioned earlier, [i.e.,] boycotting him … this warning and this cutting off and this boycotting will not produce the results desired by [the implementation of] these three words : warning … cutting off … boycotting–why?
Because if you cut off from him you will find tens of people like you who will keep contact with him, and thus the situation will be turned on its head–you will be cut off from him and not him from you, and at that point, what is the advantage of you boycotting him?
This reminds me of a Syrian saying and it has a similar [version] here [in Jordan], but [whatever the case] the Syrian expression says that the people thought that a faasiq who had abandoned the prayer repented to Allaah and turned back, and for the first time he goes to the mosque to pray but finds it closed, and so says, ‘You’re closed and [so] I have a day off [from praying]!’ obviously the saying is understood.
Okay, likewise nowadays this faasiq, the one who has abandoned the prayer, when you decide to boycott him … to cut off from him … to warn against him … he doesn’t care, [and even if he doesn't say it with his tongue] his state of affairs says, ‘You’re closed and [so] I have a day off [from praying]! You’re cutting off from me and I’ll cut off from you and distance myself from you,’ and so on.
In summary, the principle of cutting off/ostracizing today is out of the question because we are in a time when the Muslims are weak.
And this connection [that I’m about to mention] which keeps them linked together, [i.e.,] the correct Islaam, represented in his saying عليه السلام in the authentic hadith, ‘The example of the believers in their mutual love, mercy and compassion is that of the body, if one part of it complains, the rest of the body joins it in staying awake and suffering fever,’–the Muslims today are not like that.
For this reason we do not have the means which it is fitting to rely on to bring together this widespread and dispersed division of today except by relying on His Statement the Mighty and Majestic:
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” [Nahl 16:125]
This is now the means which it is fitting that we rely on.
So when we see a faasiq person who has turned away from performing some of what Allaah has made obligatory upon a Muslim, we admonish him and remind him and are gentle with him.
Likewise, when we see a person or people who we cannot call faasiqs because we [for example] assume that they are guarding the obligatory duties whose obligation is well-known amongst all of the Muslims, i.e., the type of things [that are so fundamental to the religion and well-known] that they are from the category of actions called, ‘known as being from the religion by necessity,’ for we may find people who perform such obligatory duties and who do not leave them, and [thus] their perseverance in those obligatory actions comes between us and the application of the term faasiq to them, understood [so far]?
Okay, yet along with that it is possible that in these people there is some deviation from the correct ’aqidah in a certain issue or in many points of ’aqidah, this is possible, like the groups whose names today we hear recorded in the books dealing with sects and history [but which] we do not find [present] with those names in the current day and age, but we do find their effects in the state of affairs of many of the Islamic jamaa’ahs or individual Muslims, the Mu’tzailah for example, the Jabariyyah, the Qadariyyah, the Khawaarij, and so on.
In these sects there used to be found people who had deviated from the Sunnah in ’aqidah and who were regarded as righteous worshippers, yet along with that would be misguided, for example, ’Umar ibn ’Ubaid al-Mu’tazili, he would be cited as an example in his righteousness and his taqwaa but he held the [belief of the] madhhab of the Mu’tazilah, so it is not said of him that he is a faasiq but rather that he strayed from the correct ’aqidah.
And this type exists today in the Muslim world even if there is no group or Jamaa’ah which [verbally] say, ‘We are Mu’tazilah,’–I haven’t heard of anyone except one man who openly declared it in this city in front of the people, he said, ‘I’m a Mu’tazili,’ he said it openly, ‘I’m a Mu’tazili,’ and he really was a Mu’tazili and [in fact] even more misguided than they were … [but] we’re not in the middle of explaining that right now …
So the point is that it is obligatory on us to be gentle with misguided people such as these too and to establish the proof against them from the Book of Allaah, the Sunnah of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, the statements of the Pious Predecessors and the Mujtahid Imaams–this is what it is obligatory for our stance to be towards those who have deviated from Islaam in either action or notion, until the Muslims become stronger and gain power and a country, then when these people are told about the correct Islaam and [still] do not restrain from the defiant disobedience [fisq] and misguidance they are upon, they then have a different ruling, [but at the same time] this ruling is not connected to individual righteous Muslims [to carry out], but is rather connected to the Muslim ruler, and perchance this is close, if Allaah so wills.
Perhaps I’ve answered your question?
Questioner: Yes, as a completion, what … [is it] likewise with non-Muslims?
Al-Albaani: Yes, it is likewise, without a doubt.
Questioner: The Jews and the Christians and so on?
Al-Albaani: Today, regretfully, my brother, the situation of the Muslims is very precarious …”
The next post.
Questioner: The first [question] is concerning the topic of the ’aqidah of loyalty and disavowal [al-Walaa wal-Baraa]: is it permissible for a Muslim that the ’aqidah of loyalty and disavowal be made apparent [i.e., implemented] before, ya’ni, establishing the proof against the other person, whether that other person is a non-Muslim or someone from other than Ahlus-Sunnah, ya’ni, someone astray …
Al-Albaani: If you were to remove the term ‘loyalty and disavowal [al-Walaa wal-Baraa],’ from your question, do you think the question still holds? Because I see that a connection which holds the question together cannot be found if you remove the term ‘loyalty and disavowal?’
Questioner: No, it does not hold.
Al-Albaani: Why … I then don’t understand the question, because the completion of your question …
Questioner: Loyalty … so, the question … it’s as though it is worded incorrectly, in the negative, I mean disavowal …
Al-Albaani: Let us repeat the question. What is the question that is connected to [the term] disavowal, is it permissible for a Muslim to what?
Questioner: That, ya’ni, he starts from the person …
Al-Albaani: Now it’s clear.
Questioner: … from the action, the basis is for him to start from the action … but from a person, [his question is jumbled and not clear, he is saying that if you want to boycott someone you boycott him for the action not because of him personally, so you say the action is misguidance etc., and then afterwards based upon that that the person is misguided etc.] ya’ni, who is involved in this action before the proof being established against him, whether he is a non-Muslim or [a Muslim but] from other than Ahlus-Sunnah.
Al-Albaani: Now the question is clear. After this clarification, maybe we can replace the term, ‘disavowal,’ with another word which will make the question aimed at clearer, i.e., ‘disassociation or boycotting,’ is this correct do you think, [answer me] so I can go on to answer?
Al-Albaani: Yes, i.e., ‘Is it permissible for a Muslim to disassociate [himself] from a non-Muslim and not deal with him and to boycott him, [and] is it permissible for a Muslim to disassociate [himself] from an openly sinning Muslim who does not practice, [is it allowed for the practicing Muslim to] act upon Islaam and boycott him?’ This is what is intended from the question or something else?
Questioner: Warning, ya’ni, against him.
Questioner: Warning against him and his da’wah.
Al-Albaani: Warning against him, does this warning against him necessitate cutting off and boycotting him? Say [in response to this question I just asked], ‘Of course,’ or should he maintain communication and then warn against him? Namely, the question must be clarified until we can come to know the answer.
Questioner: … so that I understand …
Al-Albaani: I’m saying, a person is warning against another, does he maintain relations with him or boycott him?
Questioner: He boycotts him.
Al-Albaani: Okay, so there is a correlation, the two issues are linked, after this clarification I now say that I can tackle the answer to the question.
Amongst our problems in this day and age is that we deal with issues based upon emotion.
[What] I want to say is that lots of the youth today who are enthusiastic about their Islaam, their religion, deal with some critical/complex fiqh issues in a manner based upon [their] emotions for Islaam … dealing with [those issues] in a manner not accompanied by knowledge drawn from the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.
I believe that a question such as this, i.e., warning … cutting off … boycotting … loyalty and disavowal … these are issues that are connected to a strong Islamic society which is capable of, firstly, implementing issues such as these and secondly, is capable of benefitting from their outcome.
So now, it is not necessary/a prerequisite that [such a] warning is coupled with ostracism or boycotting in this day and age, but as for when our society is an Islamic one then all of these issues must be brought together. Nowadays, for example, there is a very clear example [which I will give you] …
The next post.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: How do you deal with or what is the ruling concerning someone who has left the manhaj of the Salaf as-Saalih from the people of knowledge or those other them, how do you deal with them and what is the ruling concerning them? Benefit us [by giving us an answer], may Allaah help you.
Al-Albaani: May Allaah bless you, it is fitting that this scholar or learner deals with the generality of Muslims on the basis of giving sincere advice, i.e., it is a must for him to always, as far as he is able, contact them personally or by phone or to write to them, [so he should] use any means he can by which he can offer some sincere advice and knowledge to these people.
And it is not fitting that just because of the occurrence of some difference in an aspect of knowledge that we make that a reason for one Muslim to distance himself from his Muslim brother.
I am totally convinced about what I am saying–with the condition that no stubbornness/obstinacy becomes apparent to me from the one who opposes our manhaj or call. If stubbornness does become apparent then what remains is [just] wasting time in contacting them, especially because a person’s abilities are limited and he cannot meet each and every individual in a town, let alone a country, let alone the world.
Thus, he must contact those people who are most likely to benefit from what he says, his communication with them, his friendship, his companionship, [those who will benefit] more than the others, so he starts as that poet said:
Copious, is knowledge, if thou seeketh it
Insufficient, is thy time, to acquire it
So start with the most important thing and then the next, [give precedence] to the most important thing and then the next in importance: this person [for example] has the propensity to understand you and respond to you more than that [other] person, so give him two portions of your time not one, there [could be] another person who deserves three portions and so on.
But if you can, do not cut off from this person who deserves one portion, only do so if his obstinacy becomes apparent to you, and obstinacy is disbelief so there is no point in wasting time with him.
And this is how the answer to the question will be; that those people who used to be on the Salafi way but who then affiliated themselves with the partisan way–it is not fitting that such a person be boycotted, rather we should follow up on him by giving him knowledge and reminding him and so on. Until the time we lose hope regarding him, Allaah forbid, and he becomes a part of the group of stubborn, obstinate ones, as he عليه السلام said, “No one in whose heart is an atom’s weight of pride will enter Paradise.” A man said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! What if a man likes his clothes to look good and his shoes to look good?’ He said, ‘Allaah is Beautiful and loves beauty. Pride means rejecting the truth and looking down on people.” Muslim no. 285
So when you feel that a person is rejecting the truth and is looking down upon you then free yourself of him, as for the others, then you have to be with them according to the limits of your ability.
And [saying] this much is sufficient, and all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of all the Worlds.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 581.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: O Shaikh! Regarding hating a person, isn’t it so that a person must love his brother for the Sake of Allaah, and hate for the Sake of Allaah, give for His Sake and withhold for His Sake [too] … by hating, I should hate someone for their ideology not for their person, if he is a Muslim and prays, not hatred …, I hate, for example, his ideology and not him personally?
Al-Albaani: I do not think there is a distinction between the two things except when the dislike of the person who is doing the action which is in opposition to the legislation leads to ostracising him, then [we say that] it is not allowed to hate him to that extent.
Namely, boycotting someone is not done just because a person falls into something which opposes the Sharee’ah, for if that were the case then the entire Islamic community would be taken to pieces because not a single one of us is free of something which another person may dislike in him, putting aside whether this hatred is regarding something justifiable–we are now only talking about hatred when it’s justifiable, so what do you think if it is for something false.
There is not a single one of us except that another person will dislike something in him. So boycotting is inapplicable due to such a dislike. But we do not imagine that we dislike the evil action committed by this person while [at the same time] not disliking the source of the action. So these are two things which it is not possible for us to split one from the other.
But I say that it is fitting that when we dislike someone for a wrong action he has done it does not necessarily mean that we are allowed to break relations with him, clear?
And this boycotting, without doubt, is a means of educating in Islaam but it, firstly, is implemented only concerning a person who performed a disliked deed which is not customary of him, and secondly it must be noted whether the boycotting will realize the desired goal, which is to educate this person and bring him back to the correct path. So if the boycotting will realize this goal then it should be done and if not, then it shouldn’t.
Many of our practicing brothers always discuss [the issue of] boycotting a person: for example, [boycotting] someone who has left praying or is a backbiter or a tale-carrier or who does some well-known sins, so the question about whether we should boycott him is asked. And this person they are asking about may be a relative, even a close relative through marriage or blood.
So we turn the attention of those asking this question to this principle: do you feel that if you boycott this person who is doing such and such, that it will benefit him or will his stance be, as I mention sometimes, like that of the man who used to be a sinner, someone who had left the worship of his Lord, who then repented and resolved to pray his first prayer at the mosque. He went to the mosque and found it closed, and so said, ‘You’re closed and I have a day off [from praying].’
So if this person who you want to boycott has no concern about your boycotting him, what is the benefit of it then?
Rather, the opposite is correct–that you stay in touch with him, advising him, reminding him every time the opportunity arises.
So, firstly, boycotting is not done for some trivial reason and secondly, even if it is to be done for something which the person doing it deserves to be boycotted over, it is obligatory upon us to study the situation of the community/society we live in.
And from that about which there is no doubt is the fact that, with deep regret, the community today does not help the Muslims who want to boycott another since the reality is that he will not even care about this ostracism.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 563.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: Is what we hear correct that in this day and age boycotting the innovators should not be implemented?
Al-Albaani: He wants to say that it is not right that it should be implemented. Is it correct that it should not be implemented? It is not implemented, because the innovators and the disobedient Muslims sinners [faasiqs] and criminals [faajirs] are the majority today, but he is trying to say that it is not right that it is implemented, and it is as though the first person the questioner is referring to is me: so I say yes, it is as such, it is not right to implement it, and I have said this openly just now when I gave you that Syrian proverb, ‘You are closed and I have a day off,’ yes.
Questioner: But, for example, when an environment is found, and the majority in it are from Ahlus-Sunnah, for example, and thereafter some people who have deviated from the path of truth [nawaabidh] are found who innovated into the Religion of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, in that situation is it implemented or not?
Al-Albaani: In the Jamaa’ah itself?
Questioner: In that environment which the people of truth dominate and then innovation became apparent in it, what do you say about this situation?
Al-Albaani: It is obligatory here to use wisdom. The strong, uppermost group, if it boycotts the group which has deviated from the Jamaa’ah–going back to what we already said–will that defend/aid the group which is clinging to the Truth or will it harm them? This is as regards them [i.e., the group on the truth].
Thereafter, will it benefit those being boycotted by the Aided Group or will it harm them, the answer to this has preceded, i.e., it is not right that we act upon these affairs based upon zealousness and emotions but rather with careful deliberation, tolerance and wisdom.
Because we, for example … [imagine] one of these people deviated [from the truth], he opposed the Jamaa’ah, … [and then the reaction from those who want to cut him off will be], ‘Boycott him! Don’t be kind to him!’ [Rather you should] advise him, guide him, and so on, accompany him for a while, then when you, firstly, despair of him and, secondly, think that his infection will spread to Zaid and Bakr [i.e., other people], then he is cut off when it is believed that boycotting will be the cure, and as is said, the last cure one resorts to is cauterization [i.e., boycotting is the last resort].
Generally, nowadays, I do not advise the use of boycotting whatsoever, because it harms more than it benefits.
And the greatest proof of that is the fitnah that is on-going now in the Hijaz. The call of tawheed and the call of the Book and the Sunnah unites all of them but some of them have specific activities, whether in politics or other views which are not known from any of the people of knowledge before, and it [i.e., what they say] may be correct and it may be wrong. [But] we cannot tolerate anything new that we hear especially if it appears to us to be something which, at first suggestion [i.e., without giving it any careful thought], we don’t recognize. We attack it straight away, this is a mistake, my brother:
You want a friend with no faults
And does aloes wood [Oud] give off its fragrance without smoke?
We [earnestly] hope that the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon are with us on Tawheed alone [if nothing else], so that we can be with them, for they are not pleased with us even in aqidah and they say that rousing these differences splits the ranks and divides the people … and so on.
These brothers [in the Hijaaz] who a group have split away from or who split away from a group [themselves], and Allaah knows best … they are with us all the way regarding the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih, but they came with something new, some of it is wrong and some of it is correct.
So why do we spread dissension, partisanship and bigotry amongst ourselves, such that whereas once we were a single block we became two, three, they became … became Surooris … and so on, Allaahu Akbar.
And nothing divided them which deserved to be split over: there is no difference in the major issues which it cannot be imagined the Salafis would differ in. We all know that the Companions differed in some issues, but their methodology was one.
For this reason if you take it that some individuals from the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and the Aided Sect have deviated, then we deal with them with kindness and tenderness, Yaa akhi, and we try to keep them with the Jamaa’ah and we don’t ostracise them nor boycott them except when we fear something from them–and this does not become apparent straight away, i.e., just because someone has an opinion in which he disagrees [with the Jamaa’ah] and has strayed from the Jamaa’ah it is not fitting that we immediately ostracise and boycott him.
But rather we should wait and be patient until maybe Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, guides his heart or it becomes clear to us that leaving him is better.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 666.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good … a question, O Shaikh, … with us in Kuwait is a group of practising Muslim youth who do not like/feel comfortable with others although there are no takes [criticsm] on the religion of those others, but [one of these youths may say], ‘I just don’t like him, personally, I don’t feel comfortable concerning him.’ And when he is corrected he cites as proof the hadith of Wahshi and the time the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him, ‘Can you hide your face from me?’ So they say that here the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم personal disposition … the man [i.e., Wahshi] came having repented [but the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم still told him to hide his face from him], so they use this hadith as a proof, if you could clarify this for us.
Al-Albaani: This hadith cannot be used as a proof in this context. It is true that he came, repentant, but in the soul of the Prophet عليه السلام was sorrow which neither the passing of days nor time could wipe out because of the fact that Wahshi killed his uncle, Hamzah.
So [concerning your question] what did this person who that other one does not feel comfortable with do? What he did is nothing.
For this reason citing this as a proof in reality shows us that we live in a time in which people try to walk before they can crawl [Editor’s. note: the Arabic proverb the Shaikh used translated literally reads, ‘… tries to become a dried raisin before he becomes a sour grape …’], and they feign knowledge whilst being ignorant, and they are not scholars. So this deduction is extremely poor because it is not compatible with the incident [mentioned in the question].
Imagine that a person unjustly, out of oppression and enmity, killed a Muslim’s brother and then came to the murdered person’s brother, repentant, and from his behaviour it is apparent that he really has repented, but the murdered person’s brother said to him, ‘Hide your face from me,’ this situation is not like that one [mentioned in the question], because this person killed his brother unjustly, and as a result he doesn’t want to disturb the [remaining] peace in his life by looking at his brother’s murderer, for example.
So this situation differs [from the one in the question], and we ask Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, to give us understanding of the religion and to teach us its interpretation.
Questioner: I.e., is he sinful in doing that, O Shaikh?
Al-Albaani: Without doubt, because this is turning away from one another and cutting off.
Questioner: Is it not from desires?
Al-Albaani: It is, without doubt, following desires.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 237.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: If there was, O Shaikh, a man from the common folk who prays but who, in character, is as sly as a fox, such that whoever comes across him finds it difficult to deal with him … a specific dispute occurred between you and him in which he was at fault, he advocated/defended what was wrong. It was not a dispute over a fiqh issue, just something normal, so after the debate/dispute is over, you meet him in the street and say, ‘As-Salaamu alaikum,’ but he does not reply to you, so you stop greeting him with salaam, and you are happy that he did not reply to your salutation because in that you saw an end to his evil [i.e., you don’t have to deal with him anymore]. So is this action legislated [i.e., permissible] or do I have to be happy to give him salaam every time I meet him?
Al-Albaani: If you gave him salaam every time you met him, then that is better, and if you turned away from him, then that is permissible.
Questioner: Jazaakallaahu khair.
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 192.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Continuing from the last post.
Questioner: … [in this case] he has not repented.
Al-Albaani: He has not repented.
Questioner: So if he has not repented nor turned back to Allaah.
Al-Albaani: But you are not referring to this …
Questioner: … branching off from this question is another which is that in reality the boycotter may not restrict the matter to himself only but generalises it to include his family, his children, preventing them from talking to the other person [being boycotted] and his children and so on, likewise now …
Al-Albaani: And it has become apparent to all that the man has repented and turned back to Allaah.
Al-Albaani: The same is said [about this situation]: it is not permissible for these people [you just mentioned] to continue upon that.
Questioner: Okay, the applicability of the situation [to the heirs of the one being boycotted if he died] … if the person being boycotted died … his children and family … bearing in mind that each person is responsible for himself … i.e., the issue is between those two parties …
Al-Albaani: I.e., Abu Yahyaa, you mean that the one being boycotted has children who are now being boycotted …
Questioner: … due to him [i.e., due to the fact that their father was being boycotted].
Al-Albaani: Due to him … this is not allowed. For no soul bears the burden of another.
Questioner: It’s clear from many hadiths, we would like hadiths which show that it is permissible for a Muslim to boycott another [for permissible reasons].
Al-Albaani: Boycotting occurred between the Companions, those three who remained behind and who were boycotted for fifty days.
Interjection: The proof is mentioned in the text of the Quraan.
Questioner: Is this proof applicable to all Muslims [in general], or was it specially revealed for a certain situation. I.e., is there another proof clarifying/explaining it for others [in terms of applicability], because this proof …
Al-Albaani: Your asking whether there is another aayah regarding it … this happens very often with me, on the phone [the Shaikh will give someone an answer on the phone and then that person will ask for another proof] and so I say to them, ‘This hadith didn’t please you that you have to ask for another?’
And I [now], for example, have to bring two or three hadith about the issue?
This is not conceivable [i.e., it is not conceivable that every question asked will have more than one proof]. If in the Legislation, in the Noble Quraan, it has been established that boycotting is permissible it is not befitting that it then be said, ‘Is there any other proof?’ Why?
Because this question gives the impression to those present that this proof [from the Quraan] is not enough and for this reason we are asking for another. This is a side point which has no connection with the topic, it’s just a reminder of making one’s method of questioning good, and asking questions well/correctly is half of knowledge, as was said of old.
After this [point] I say: it has been established that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم boycotted his wives for a month, and the thing I fear the most is that another question will come also saying, ’Is there another hadith apart from this one? Because this one is connected to the wives of the Prophet and …’
Listen to the answer now: the purpose of the first boycotting mentioned in the Quraan, and the purpose of the second mentioned in the Prophetic hadiths … a question we should think about is: is it something related purely to worship whose meaning cannot be understood or is its meaning understood?
Questioner: Its meaning is understood.
Al-Albaani: Its meaning is understandable. So, when there is a text whose ruling is understood and it is not something related purely to worship, and we have nothing but this text then we have to stop at it and not go beyond it.
So now in front of us are two texts, why did the Prophet عليه السلام order his most Noble Companions to boycott those three who remained behind? There is no doubt that the answer is in order to discipline them. Why did the Prophet boycott his wives? [Again,] to discipline them.
So now we say: why did Zaid boycott Amr? If it is in the same manner then the proof from the Quraan and authentic Sunnah is enough, but the difference, without doubt, is very clear, in that the boycotting of … I will not go too far [and will give you an example even closer to home] … the boycotting of Al-Albaani of Zaid or Bakr or Amr is not like the boycotting of those Companions who were directly ordered to cut off from those [three] who remained behind, and even more so: it is not like the boycotting of the Prophet of his wives, because he is infallible.
[So] what is important is that the boycotter, who in this case is Al-Albaani [as an example], is doing so to discipline/educate. Boycotting to discipline whom? The boycotted person. So if he is correct in doing so then he will be rewarded and his example is [taken from] the Book and the Sunnah. And if he is mistaken and there is room for someone to show him how he is mistaken then we welcome that and say, ‘O Abu Bilaal! May Allaah have mercy on the one who guides me to my faults [so that I can correct them].’
… Shaikh Ali [Hasan al-Halabi] here has reminded us of a hadith which is that Abdullaah ibn Umar al-Khattaab narrated a hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم one day saying that he said, ‘Allow the women to go to the mosques at night.’ So one of Abdullaah ibn Umar’s sons said, ‘By Allaah! I will not allow them to go out.’ So the father said to the son, ‘I say to you that Allaah’s Messenger said such and such, and you say, ‘I will not do it?’ By Allaah! I will never speak to you again.’
I say to you that Allaah’s Messenger said, and you say the opposite of what the Prophet said? By Allaah, I will never speak to you again! And he didn’t speak to him until he died. And the hadith … listen … the hadith is in Sahih Muslim, what do we think Ibn Umar’s intent was in …
Questioner: To discipline/educate him.
Al-Albaani: To discipline/educate him.
Questioner: I have another hadith, O Ustaadh.
Al-Albaani: Bring it, let’s have a look. Only, inshaa Allaah, your hadith will be like his [i.e., the one Shaikh Ali mentioned], strong.
Questioner: One of the Companions was hunting by throwing stones, Abdullaah ibn … another Companion saw him, I don’t recall the names now, he told him that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade al-Khadhf which is to … so he found him …
Al-Albaani: Yes, yes.
Questioner: So another time he saw this Companion doing the same thing and so said to him, ‘I said to you, ‘The Prophet عليه السلام forbade [this] and you’re still carrying on hunting like this …’ He then said, ‘I will never speak to you.’ [Translator’s note: here is the text of the hadith the questioner is referring to from Sahih al-Bukhaari: The book of Slaughtering and Hunting, Al-Khadhf (throwing stones with the middle finger and the thumb) and Al-Bunduqa (a ball of clay thrown through a hollow stick or the like).
Narrated Abdullaah bin Maghaffal that he saw a man throwing stones with two fingers (at something) and said to him, ‘Do not throw stones, for Allaah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم has forbidden throwing stones, or he used to dislike it.’ ‘Abdullaah added, ‘Throwing stones will neither hunt a game, nor kill (or hurt) an enemy, but it may break a tooth or gouge out an eye.’ Afterwards ‘Abdullaah once again saw the man throwing stones. He said to him, ‘I tell you that Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم has forbidden or disliked throwing stones (in such a way), yet you are throwing stones! I shall not talk to you for such-and-such a period.’]
Questioner: Even his expression, Ustaadh, he says, ‘May the same roof not shelter us!’ How do we gather between this action and the saying of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم which prohibits [boycotting] for more than three days?
Al-Albaani: May Allaah forgive you, may Allaah forgive you. My dear brother, we said that the boycotting which is forbidden is the one done for worldly reasons to vent one’s anger against whom? The opponent. As for the legislated boycotting then it is for an educational purpose, so now you’re question is not applicable.
Questioner: Okay, Abdullah ibn Umar raising [his son], he’s the father, you’d think that Abdullaah … the boy’s father, who brought his son up, he brought his son up, i.e., a Companion from the Companions of Allaah’s Messenger, he didn’t refrain from what he said … [Compiler’s note: the questioner is trying to say can it be pictured that the son of Abdullaah ibn Umar, being the son of a Companion, wasn’t inhibited from doing what he did? So then Shaikh al-Albaani explains below that this is another issue and that Abdullaah ibn Umar boycotted his son because he did not show the correct manners in relation to a saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم so Abdullaah ibn Umar saw it correct to be stern on his son as a punishment because he is the son of a Companion and because he is from the first generation and if the Companions had been lax with everyone who ignored the Prophetic Sunnah, the Sunnah would be lost.]
Al-Albaani: This is another issue, this is another issue, we want to know why it was that Abdullaah ibn Umar boycotted his son and never spoke to him until he died, out of a desire to discipline/educate him, regarding the incorrect stance he had taken in relation to the saying of the Prophet عليه السلام.
As for the issue of whether he repented or not this does not concern us as regards the issue [we’re discussing at the moment], what concerns us is why Abdullaah boycotted his son: was it to vent his own [personal] anger or was it retaliation on behalf of the saying of his Prophet and in order to champion the hadith of his Prophet?
It was, without doubt, for this reason.
So this is the difference … and the legislated boycotting and the unlegislated one …, i.e., two people argue with each other, this happens a lot for worldly reasons, so as we said when explaining the hadith and commenting on it … we gave the example that they boycott for three days and then what? The better of the two is the one who gives his brother salaam first, because there was no boycotting for the Sake of Allaah in this example.
The boycotting for the Sake of Allaah continues except when it is plainly clear, as we said at the end of the last discussion, [when it is plainly clear] that the boycotted person has repented and turned back to Allaah.
For example, a person doesn’t pray so his brother boycotts him, or his friend, or his beloved and so on, and explains the reason he is being boycotted, not hiding that reason from him, [but tells him why, saying,] ‘[It is] because you don’t pray …,’ so he remains like that for a long period, a short period [whatever is the case], and then the person starts to pray to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic. So [now] the justification to boycott him has gone, and so on …
Al-Hudaa wan-Noor 154.
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Questioner: Namely, is it correct to say that … that it is the intention that defines the permissibility or not of backbiting?
Al-Albaani: Yes, it’s just that the intention without doubt is the reference point for all actions, but what I wanted to bring to [your] attention was that a person has to look at himself and not boycott his brother for a purely worldly reason while imagining that he is only boycotting him with the intention of disciplining him.
And a person may lie, for example, or fabricate something, and so another person will boycott him, but saying such a lie or making such a fabrication is not from the nature of this person who is now being boycotted, so it is upon a person to advise and remind him of the forbiddance of what he has done.
For if not, when the door of boycotting another Muslim is opened just because he has committed a mistake then it would mean that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to boycott each other and to cut off from each other and to turn away from each other and that they not be brothers as Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, described them. This is what I wanted to turn your attention to.
Questioner: And on top of that the religion is to sincerely advise one another..
Another Questioner: Namely, if the purpose of disciplining him has been met, who decides that the goal has been reached?
Al-Albaani: When repentance and the fact that he has turned back to Allaah become apparent from the person being boycotted, or at the very least an apology for what he did; we cannot ask for any more than that.
Questioner: Namely, when the one boycotting insists [on boycotting] despite the repentance of the person being boycotted, what is the role of the other Muslims [regarding this]?
Al-Albaani: After he has repented?
Questioner: Yes, the man repented from his mistake, but the one boycotting is still boycotting him and determined on doing so–is there then a role for his friends, relatives or family [to play]?
Al-Albaani: It is as though I understand from your question, and Allaah knows best, [that you are asking] what the role of these other people is, not in relation to the one being boycotted but to the one boycotting, i.e., is the situation turned on its head and the one who was boycotting [himself now] boycotted?
Questioner: … the one boycotted has repented and turned back to Allaah and acknowledged his mistake, but the one boycotting is persisting [in his stance], so should he be left … or, namely, is there something which should be done by a person working on the issue[/involved in the situation, like] going to the one boycotting him and telling him …
Al-Albaani: That must be done, … as for the fact that it is advice, then the Shaikh, the Khateeb [in this mosque] gave this advice [reminding us in the sermon] that the religion is to sincerely advise one another and this was a reminder of the obligation of advising one another.
So if the one who was being boycotted repented and turned back to Allaah, and the one boycotting continued in his boycotting then he is wrong. We do not now say that the tables should be turned as I alluded to earlier, jokingly, the situation is not turned on its head so that the one who was boycotting is now [himself] boycotted, but he should be told that his role has come to an end.
Questioner: And if the one being boycotted tried … two times, three times, but the other person remained firm on his stance of boycotting, is there something that should be required of him …?
Al-Albaani: I’m sorry, the one being boycotted did what?
Questioner: He tried more than one time to give salaam to the other and approach him but the other refuses and insists [on his stance], how long should he carry on trying, namely, is he, by just trying once, twice or three times, not required to try anymore or should he continue trying for the rest of his life …
Al-Albaani: Abu Yahyaa is speaking about the one being boycotted.
Questioner: The one being boycotted tried to dispel the enmity with the one boycotting him, trying one time, another and a third, but that person is insisting on his stance. So the role of the one being boycotted now … he suffices himself by having tried once, twice, three times, and he will lose his mind if he keeps on trying for the rest of his life …
Al-Albaani: This is unreasonable …
Questioner: This is my question?
Al-Albaani: Okay, after your question has become clear then his part [in trying to rectify the affair] has ended and the situation is turned around in relation to the one boycotting such that he is sinful in boycotting. For this reason we say that he is advised because it is not upon the one being boycotted to do more than what you just mentioned except when the issue branches off into monetary rights, for example, where the one being boycotted is not giving back such rights [to their prospective owners].