بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The current circumstance of those affirming compliance to the Prophetic Methodology, in the west generally and in the US specifically, stands in stark contrast to the intent of the Islamic Legislation in some affairs connected to the rectification of individuals and communities. This opposition was virtually unseen and unheard of to the first virtuous generation of Muslims, a point that Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab alluded to around 230 years ago, as relates to varying affairs in the religion. He stated, “Among the most remarkable of wonders and the greatest of signs indicating the ability of the Triumphant King are six principles that Allah elucidated with a blatantly obvious clarification for the general masses, being far above the suspicions of the naysayers/skeptics. Thereafter -i.e. this clarification- many among the intellectuals of this world and the erudite thinkers among the descendants of Adam erred with regards to them except a small number among a minority.”
The last point concerning those who erred in that which Allah made explicitly clear is reiterated in the second principle pertaining to unity. He stated, “Thereafter, division within the fundamentals of the religion and its subsidiary issues became knowledge and comprehension of the religion, whereas unity in the religion became that which no one spoke about except a heretic or one mentally challenged.” Hence unity, what it is, how it’s maintained, how to reinstate it after tension and turmoil, and how to rectify individuals that err in that regard; the aspects of this fundamental and that which is directly connected to it are adversely misunderstood by many who ascribe themselves to adherence to the Prophetic Methodology in the US. From the most simplistic of explanations as to why this has occurred, is summed up in speech from the firmly grounded scholar and specialist Ibn Qayyim where he basically stated that people have confused the way of the criminals with the way of the believers. He states the following:
“Whoever does not know the path of the criminals, i.e. it not being made clear to him; he assumes that some of its path is actually the path of the believers similar to that which is occurring within the Islamic Nation as relates to many affairs pertaining to creed, knowledge, and action. He who is unaware that it is the path of the criminals, disbelievers, and enemies of the messengers insert it into the path of the believers consequently calling to it, passing the ruling of disbelief upon whomever opposes it, and makes permissible that which Allah and His Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- prohibit. Inevitably they resemble what occurs among the people of innovation e.g. The Jahmiyyah, The Qadariyyah, The Khawaarij, The Shiite, and whomever else is like them from those who innovate (an action into the religion), invite to it, and judge to be a disbeliever whomever opposes it.”
Likewise among those that resemble the aforementioned sects are the Haddadiyyah, those that deem themselves as defenders of the Sunnah, and preservers of the religion in contemporary times; however, their true reality is that they are a confused people, they have confusion with them as pertains to the path of the believers. They believe excessiveness in matters of boycotting, declaring one to be an innovator, refutations, and weighing the pros and cons is the middle course and path of the believers, when in reality it is not. They claim they are upon Salafiyyah with regards to their haphazard approach, but in reality are upon Haddadiyyah in that regard. Thus the following is a verdict from the world renown scholar Ibn Taimiyyah which pertains to some of the affairs about which these individuals are confused. Following that will be commentary to further elucidate very important points mentioned by the scholar of Islam within his verdict.
Sheikh-ul-Islam ibn Taimiyya was asked the following:
To whom which is it obligatory to hate or boycott, or both for Allah’s sake? Likewise what is made conditional upon he who hates or boycotts for Allah’s sake of prerequisites? Is abandonment of the greetings included within the boycott or not? Additionally, if the boycotted initiates the greeting is it binding upon the boycotter to return it or not? Is the hatred and boycott for Allah’s sake continued until the goal of removing the qualities (of opposition) which legitimize his hatred and boycott are actualized or does it persist for a known duration? If it is for a known duration what is its limit?
His response: The Islamic Legislative Boycott is of two types:
The First; abandonment of evil deeds.
The second; punishment on account of evil deeds.
Thus the first is mentioned in the Exalted’s statement
و إذا رأيتَ الذين يخوضون في آياتنا فأعرضْ عنهم حتّى يخوضوا في حديث غيره و إمّا يُنْسينَّك الشيطان فلا تقعد بعد الذكرى مع القوم الظالمين
“And if you see those who engage in negative conversation as pertains to Our Verses, then shun them until they change the topic of the conversation. If the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit with an oppressive people after remembering.” Al-An’am: 68
و قد نزّل عليكم في الكتاب أن إذا سمعْتم آياتِ الله يُكْفَر بها و يُسْتهزأ بها فلا تقعدوا معهم حتّى يخوضوا في حديثٍ غيره إنّكم إذا مثلهم
“Undoubtedly it has been revealed within the Book that if you hear Allah’s Verses being denied and mocked, then do not sit with them until they change the topic of conversation; otherwise you would be like them..” An-Nisaa: 140
The intent of this is that one does not witness evil without a need, e.g. a people drinking alcohol i.e. sitting among them, or accepting the invitation of a people who invite you to a banquet that has therein intoxicants and wind instruments, etc. In contrast to one who attends in order to reprimand them, or he who attends without choice. On account of this (circumstance where one attends and witnesses evil without a need) it is said, “The attendee of evil is like its doer” as the narration states: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day do not sit at a table spread where alcohol is consumed.” This is the boycott related to the category of a man, himself, committing evil; just as he -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, “The migrator is he who migrates from whatever Allah forbids.” From this perspective is the migration from the lands of disbelief and sin to the lands of Islam and faith, since it is certainly abandonment of residing among the disbelievers and hypocrites who do not enable him to execute what Allah commands.
Allah the Exalted says:
والرجز فاهْجُر
“And boycott idols.” Al-Muddathir: 5
The second type; the boycott from the perspective of a disciplinary punishment, which is to abandon whomever makes apparent corruption. Hence he is boycotted until he repents from it. As an illustration the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- and the Muslims boycotted the three individuals who lagged behind (i.e. Ka’b ibn Malik and his companions), consequently leaving off jihad made binding upon each of them without an excuse until Allah revealed their repentance. On the other hand he didn’t boycott whoever outwardly displayed good, although he may have been a hypocrite. Therefore the boycott here is on the level of admonishment, it is held for whomever overtly abandons obligatory deeds and or commits the prohibited, e.g. the one who abandons prayer and annual charity, assists oppression and immorality, aids the caller to innovation that opposes the Book; the Sunnah; and the ijmaa of the Salaf that make apparent his actions of being innovation.
This is the reality of the statement from whomever among the Salaf and the specialists of knowledge that say, “Undoubtedly the callers to innovation’s testimonies are not accepted, they are not prayed behind, knowledge is not taken from them, and they are not given (the hand of a woman) in marriage.” This is a punishment for them until they cease. On account of this they distinguished between the caller and non caller due to the caller manifesting evil that results in the meriting of punishment. In contrast to the one who conceals such, since he is not worse than the hypocrites, those whose outward actions the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- accepted while entrusting their private affairs to Allah whilst knowing the condition of many among them. Accordingly there is reported within the hadith, “Indeed sins if they are concealed it does not harm anyone except its committer; however, if it is public yet not rebuked it can consequently harm the masses.” That is chiefly due to the speech of the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- “The people if they see an evil yet do not change it, Allah will cover all of them with punishment from Him.” Hence manifest evil, disapproval of it is compulsory in contrast to hidden evil, its punishment is made particular to its committer.
Therefore the boycott differs in accordance to those who implement it as relates to their strength and weakness, and their scarcity (i.e. in numbers) and abundance, since the purpose of it is admonishment of the boycotted, disciplinary punishment, and reverting the masses from the similarities of his condition. Hence if the maslaha (advantage/benefit/pro), as pertains to the boycott is overwhelming to the point that boycotting him leads to weakening the evil and or lessening it, then it is legislated. However, if the boycotted and others besides him are not obstructed, the evil increases, and the boycotter is weak to the point that the mafsada (disadvantage/corruption) is more dominant than the maslaha, then -in this circumstance- it is not legislated, on the contrary, being harmonious with the people is more beneficial than boycotting, just as -in some circumstances- boycotting certain people is more beneficial than harmony.
For this reason, the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- would incline towards some yet boycott others, specifically the three that lagged behind. They were better than many who were inclined toward; however, there was a religious based maslaha attached to inclination towards them on account of who they were, as they were obeyed chiefs of their clans. The three boycotted were believers and the believers besides them were many, thus boycotting them was honoring the religion and purifying them from sin. Similar to fighting the enemy; at times it’s legislated, yet at other times there’s a treaty and acceptance of tribute. All of this is in accordance with the circumstances and the overall benefit.
In addition, the response of the firmly grounded specialists in knowledge, e.g. Ahmad (bin Hanbal), and others, is based on this foundation. Consequently he would differentiate between places in which innovation was plentiful, e.g. Al-Qadr (i.e. the Qadariyyah) in Basra, or At-Tanjim in Khurasan, or Shiism in Kufa, etc, and between places that were not similar in that regard. Similarly he would differentiate between obeyed leaders and others besides them. Thus if one knows the purpose/underlined goal of the Islamic Legislation, he traverses on the most leading of paths towards it as pertains to achieving it.
If this is understood, then (we know) the legislated boycott is from the actions Allah and His Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- command. So obedience necessitates that it is solely done for Allah’s sake along with being in accordance with His command. Consequently, whoever boycotts due to desires, or implements a boycott not sanctioned has exited from this, and how plentiful are the souls that act according to its desires assuming it to be done as obedience to Allah.
Furthermore, the boycott for the purpose of inflicting misfortune on an individual is not permissible for more than three days on account of what’s reported from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- within the two authentic collections where he said, “It is not lawful for a Muslim to boycott his brother for more than three days, each one shunning the other when they meet, and the best of the two is he who initiates the greetings.” Therefore this boycott is not authorized for more than three days, just as it is not permitted for it to be restricted to other than the wife for more than three days. Reported within the two authentic collections from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- is his speech, “The gates of paradise are opened every second and fifth day of the week, and He forgives every servant that hasn’t associated a partner in worship with Him, except a man that has between him and his brother rancor. So it will be said: Observe both of them until reconciliation is reached.” Hence this boycott related to the right of a person is forbidden (fundamentally) and is only permitted in certain cases, similar to the husband being permitted to boycott his wife as pertains to the bed if she falls into disobedience, or similar to the boycott for three days.
Therefore it is incumbent to differentiate between the boycott on account of Allah’s right and that which is implemented for the right of one’s self. The first is commanded whereas the second is prohibited due to the believers being brothers. The Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, “Do not cut one another off, don’t turn your backs on one another, don’t loathe one another, and don’t be envious of one another. Be servants of Allah; brothers! The Muslim is a brother of a Muslim.” He -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- also said, “Should I not inform you of what is more virtuous than the status of prayer, fasting, charity, enjoining good, and forbidding evil?” They replied, “Of course O Messenger of Allah” So he said, “Reconciliation between two disputants, in contrast, corruption between two is the shaver, not shaving the hair, on the contrary shaving (i.e. removing/destroying) the religion.” Additionally his statement, “The similitude of the believers with regards to their mutual love, mercifulness, and affection for one another is like one body. When a part of it complaints the remainder due such -as well- by way of fever and sleeplessness.” This is due to the fact that boycotting is from the perspective of legislated punishment. It is among the classifications of Jihad in the path of Allah that is done in order for Allah’s speech to be uppermost, and for the religion, all of it, to be strictly for Allah.
Hence, upon the believer is to hold hostility for Allah’s sake and to ally for Allah’s sake, insomuch that if there is a believer then upon him is to ally with him although he may have oppressed him. Undoubtedly oppression does not severe the faith based allegiance. Allah says:
و إن طائفتان من المؤمنين اقتتلوا فأصلِحوا بينهما فإن بغت إحداهما على الأخرى فقاتلوا التي تَبْغي حتّى تفئ إلى أمر الله فإن فاءت فأصلحوا بينهما بالعدل و أقسطوا إنّ الله يحبّ المقسطين ـ إنّما المؤمنون إخوة
“And if two parties from the believers clash with one another, then make peace between them; however, if one of the two transgresses against the other, then you all fight them until they comply with the command of Allah. If they comply thereafter, then make reconciliation between them justly and equitably, indeed Allah loves those who are equitable. The believers are nothing more than brothers…” Al-Hujuraat 9-10
So he made them brothers ordering reconciliation between them, despite the existence of infighting and aggression. Consequently, the believer contemplates on the difference between these two types (i.e. of boycotts). How plentiful is each from the two misconstrued to be the other. So have knowledge that the believer his allegiance is compulsory although he may have oppressed you. Moreover, the disbeliever his disloyalty is compulsory although he may have given to you and treated you well. Allah sent the Messenger and revealed the Book in order for the religion in its entirety to be for Him, as a result; love, respect, and reward are for His allies whereas hate, lack of respect, and punishment are for His enemies.
Subsequently, if there is gathered within a person good and bad, obedience and disobedience, sin, sunnah and innovation; he merits love/allegiance and reward according to what is within him of good. Likewise he merits hostility and punishment in accordance to what is within him of evil. Thus united within a person are what makes obligatory -both- respect and revilement, like the poor thief whose hand is severed on account of him stealing; on the other hand, he is given from the Bait-ul-Maal that which suffices his needs (i.e. combating his poverty). This a foundation which Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’aah agree upon; however, it is opposed by the Khawaarij and the Mutazilah and whomever else is in agreement with them. They do not view the people meriting anything except reward alone, and if not then he merits punishment alone. Nevertheless, Ahlus Sunnah state that Allah punishes with the Fire whomever He so punishes from the committers of major sins, afterwards He will extract them from it by way of intercession from whomever He gives the permission for intercession by virtue of His Mercy, just as is detailed within the Sunnah being -authentically- transmitted from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- and Allah knows best. May Allah’s lofty commendation be upon Muhammad, his family, and all of his companions.
مجموعة الفتاوى 210-203\28
All praises are due to Allah alone, this verdict of Sheikh-ul-Islam clarifies the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah as pertains to boycotting, that which produces overwhelming and widespread benefit for the Muslim Community, in contrast to the haphazard way of the Haddadi that may resemble the path of the believers, but in reality it blatantly opposes it, a reality well known to the intelligent whom Allah blessed with comprehension of these affairs. Thus it is of paramount importance to highlight and expound on some points made within this verdict that the Haddadi, or those affected by their way, overtly miscomprehend.
First: Differentiation Between A Theoretical Ruling On A Thing (i.e. speech or action) And Its Application When Applied To A Specific Individual
Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “The intent of this is that one does not witness evil without a need, e.g. a people drinking alcohol, i.e. sitting among them, or accepting the invitation of a people who invite you to a banquet that has therein intoxicants and wind instruments, etc. In contrast to one who attends in order to reprimand them, or he who attends without choice.”
Undoubtedly the prohibition on being in gatherings in which sinful activity is displayed and enacted is clearly known. A Muslim is not to participate -in any shape, form, or fashion,- in a gathering of this nature consequently being a witness to sin. If so, he consequently becomes like -in ruling- the committers of the evil that he witnesses, as verse 140 in An-Nisaa mentions. This is a theoretical ruling on that action; however, notice how Ibn Taimiyyah makes a distinction between a person’s circumstance who may be outwardly falling into this prohibition. One person may witness it being pleased with what’s taking place, whereas another may witness it without choice and with total hatred for what he’s witnessing. On the apparent, they are falling into the same action, but each person’s circumstance is different, thus making the ruling on each different. This is what is meant by differentiating between a theoretical ruling on a thing and when that ruling is applied to a specific individual.
Sheikh Sulaiman Abaal-Khayl said: “Among the people is he who doesn’t differentiate between the theoretical ruling on carriers of innovation with sin, or immorality, or disbelief; and between the ruling applied to a specific individual -whose Islam is established with certainty- that a type of innovation emanates from deeming him as a sinner, or immoral, or an infidel. The correct way is to not pass a ruling on him with (any of) such until it is made clear to him his opposition to the Sunnah, and that is by establishing the proof (against him) and removing the doubts (that he has causing him to implement the wrong).” –السلفية-
Establishing the proof and removal of one’s doubt are from the guidelines and principles applied prior to passing a ruling on a specific person of being an innovator, or a disbeliever, or immorally sinful. It is among the prerequisites that must be present and the obstructions (from the ruling being applicable) that must be removed. To simplify the affair, among that which must be in place along with its opposite removed are the following:
- Knowledge/Awareness which is not compatible with ignorance.
- Intention/Deliberateness which is not compatible with an unintentional mistake.
- Choice/Voluntarily which is not compatible with being coerced.
These are affairs oft-repeated by the scholars as relates to this matter and are always assessed prior to applying a ruling on a specific person. Moreover these important points are derived from the prophetic text and simplified to the masses by the people of knowledge and wisdom.
Evidence
- Abu Huraira narrates the Prophet’s -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- statement: “A man who never performed any good deed said to his family that when he died they should cremate him and subsequently place half of him (i.e. his ashes) on land and half in the sea. (He said) I swear by Allah if He had the ability -to regather his body- He would punish me with a punishment that He has not inflicted on anyone from mankind. So when he passed away his family carried out his orders. Hence Allah ordered the land to gather what was within it, and commanded the sea to gather what was within it -consequently reforming the man- thereafter He said, “Why did you do this?” The man replied, “O my Lord! On account of fear of You and You are All-Knowing. Thus Allah forgave him.” Collected by Muslim.
- Anas ibn Malik narrates the Prophet’s -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- speech: “Allah is more severe in happiness due to the repentance of His servant when he repents than anyone of you who happened to be on his riding beast in the open desert. Then his riding beast wanders away from him while having his food and drink (packed on it). Thus he falls into despair (fearing death) until he comes to a tree and lays under its shade in a state of despair as relates to his riding beast. So while he is in this state he -eventually- finds his riding beast standing near him. As a result he seizes it by its reigns and says, on account of extreme happiness, ‘O Allah! you are my servant and I am your lord.’ He erred on account of extreme happiness.” Collected by Bukhari and Muslim.
- Ali ibn Abi Talib narrated the following:
Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- sent me, Az-Zubair, and Miqdad ; he said to us, ‘Depart until you come to Rawda Khakh for surely there will be a woman and with her will be a letter, so confiscate it from her.’ So we departed, while are horses moved swiftly until we reached Rawda. I said to the woman, ‘produce the letter!’ She responded, ‘I have no letter.’ We responded with, ‘You most certainly will bring forth this letter or we will cast aside your garments (i.e. presumably in search for the letter), as a result she removed the letter from her braids. We brought it to Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- and found that it was from Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah to a group among the idolaters of Mecca informing them about some of the Messenger of Allah’s plans. So Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, ‘What is this O Hatib?’ He replied, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Please do not be hasty with me. Indeed I was a man closely connected to the Quraish, yet I was not from this tribe, in contrast to those with you from the emigrates as they have relatives there who will safeguard their families and wealth. Since that was lost I wanted to gain favor with them and they -in turn- would protect my relatives. I did not do it as disbelief and or apostasy from, nor due to being pleased with disbelief after Islam. Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, ‘You have spoken the truth.’ So Umar interjected, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Leave me so I can smite the neck of that hypocrite? He -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- replied, ‘He participated in Badr, and you do not know that perhaps Allah looked at the participants of Badr and said ” ‘Do as you will surely I forgive you.’ ” Collected by Al-Bukhari and others.
Within these authentic narrations (and in others) are examples of this point manifested within the speech and actions of our Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam. For example, the first narration indicates that the man had doubt in Allah’s ability to reform/recreate him, and doubt in Allah’s ability is disbelief, thus the one who doubts in the ability of Allah is a disbeliever, this is a theoretical ruling. The second narration the man attributed lordship to himself and servitude to Allah, and there is no doubt that this is disbelief, thus it is said that one who falls into such is a disbeliever, this is a theoretical ruling. The last narration the companion conspired against the Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- in a way that is tantamount to assisting the idolaters against the believers which is disbelief, thus anyone who does so is deemed a disbeliever. However, these examples although the actions theoretically are disbelief, these specific individuals’ circumstances cannot and did not justify legislatively the ruling of disbelief being applied to them, and this is the intent of the statement of the scholars when they say, “Every person that commits an act of disbelief does not necessitate that the ruling of disbelief is applied to him” and that is the case with innovation as well.
Sheikh-ul-Islam said in another verdict in Majmu’a-tul-fataawa (10/372): “Indeed the passages of text concerning threats found within the Quran and Sunnah, and the literal wording of scholars passing the ruling of disbelief or fisq (i.e. moral depravity and extreme sinfulness) etc, does not necessitate the solidification of its obligation upon the right of a specific person unless the prerequisites are obtained and the obstructions (to the ruling being valid) are removed. There is no differentiation between the fundamental and subsidiary matters in this regard.”
Second: Boycotting is From the Religion with Explicit Goals
Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “Therefore the boycott here is on the level of admonishment, it is held for whomever overtly abandons obligatory deeds and or commits the prohibited, e.g. the one who abandons prayer and annual charity, assists oppression and immorality, aids the caller to innovation that opposes the Book; the Sunnah; and the ijmaa of the Salaf that make apparent his actions of being innovation.”
Often times it is said that the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- loved all the Muslims and would never boycott anyone among them. An incorrect statement that severely conflicts with those acting haphazardly with regards to boycotting; however, it is not a balanced approach nor is it speaking truthfully about the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam. Factually speaking the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- did boycott for praiseworthy objectives that would not have been achieved without boycotting, a reality observed within the annals of history.
Sheikh Bakr ibn Abdullah Abu Zayd said: “The proliferated narrations with regards to the Prophet’s -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- boycotts of the sinful are established by numerous occurrences. A large portion of companions narrated such from the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- e.g. K’ab ibn Malik, ibn Amru, Aisha, Anas, Ammar, Ali, Abu Saeed Al-Khudri and others, may Allah be pleased with them. So the Prophet -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- boycotted K’ab ibn Malik and his two associates when they lagged behind failing to participate in the war expedition of Tabuk. He continued boycotting them for fifty nights until Allah’s Messenger announced Allah’s acceptance of their repentance.
Moreover, he boycotted Zainab bint Jahsh -may Allah be pleased with her- for nearly two months due to her saying “Me give to that Jewish woman” intending by that Safiyyah -may Allah be pleased with her- as Abu Dawud transmits from the narration of Aisha (4602). Likewise he boycotted the owner of the dome structure by shunning him until he destroyed it as Abu Dawud transmitted from the narration of Anas (5237, graded weak by Al-Albani). He also boycotted Ammar by leaving off returning the greetings to him on account of being covered with saffron (i.e. his hands) until he washed it off as is transmitted by Abu Dawud in his sunan (4601) and At-Tayalisi with both being transmitted from Ammar. Additionally he boycotted a man by shunning him due to being dyed with saffron as Al-Bukhari transmitted in Al-Adab-ul-Mufrad from the narration of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Furthermore he boycotted a man who he saw wearing a gold ring until he discarded it. His boycotting of him was by shunning him…” He said, after all examples, “These narrations and their intent are literal text related to the legislation of boycotting the publicly sinful person until he ceases and repents.” -هجر المبتدع-
Third: Consideration And or Attention To The Consequences or Outcomes of Actions to Ascertain If it Produces Benefit And Repels Harm
Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “Therefore the boycott differs in accordance to those who implement it as relates to their strength and weakness, and their scarcity (i.e. in numbers) and abundance, since the purpose of it is admonishment of the boycotted, disciplinary punishment, and reverting the masses from the similarities of his condition. Hence if the maslaha (advantage/benefit/pro), as pertains to the boycott is overwhelming to the point that boycotting him leads to weakening the evil and or lessening it, then it is legislated. However, if the boycotted and others besides him are not obstructed, the evil increases, and the boycotter is weak to the point that the mafsada (disadvantage/corruption) is more dominant than the maslaha, then -in this circumstance- it is not legislated, on the contrary, being harmonious with the people is more beneficial than boycotting, just as -in some circumstances- boycotting certain people is more beneficial than harmony.”
This point is very beneficial and exemplifies the intent and underlined goals of the perfect Islamic Legislation, that being to achieve overall benefit, advantages, and general wellbeing; and to repel harms, corruption, and overall disadvantages. As a result the consequences of actions are weighed prior to undertaking the action with heavy scrutiny in order to ascertain if it produces good and repels harm, or if it produces harm and repels good, or if it produces both good and bad. Unfortunately this concept seems to be foreign to the haphazard as relates to boycotting consequently producing rifts and splits between the Muslims, persistence of corrupt thoughts and ideas within the hearts of the Muslims, the Sunnah and Salafiyyah being marred within the eyes of the general Muslims, and other evils that adversely affect a person’s deen.
Sheikh Muhammad Al Imam said in his book “The Beautiful Speech as pertains to Awareness of Strife” -القول الحسن في معرفة الفتن- : “O Muslim! Upon you is to give attention to the consequences when you speak in any matter. Undoubtedly Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- said, ‘Indeed the servant speaks a word which causes him to descend into the Fire farther than the distance between the east and the west.’ “
He also said in his book -تمام المنة في فقه قتال الفتنة- : “Examination as pertains to the consequences of things is a quality of the intellect and an inoculator for it, thus had those who marched forth, as relates to the strife of infighting, examined what they would achieve of harms upon themselves in this worldly life and in the next, they would not have proceeded with that.”
Sheikh Abdur Rahman ibn Nasir As-Sa’idi said: “If several beneficial things compete with one another, give preference to what is higher (in benefit) than the others. Hence preference is given to the obligatory over the recommended, also to the more preponderate in benefit than to the least. Additionally, if harmful matters compete and one is forced to do one of these acts, give preference to what is less in harm from them.” The sheikh also said while further elucidating this point: “The story of Khidr as relates to killing the boy and puncturing the boat make evident the second foundation. The circumstance surrounding the killing of the boy, which is an evil/harm, and his overburdening (i.e. oppressively) of his parents along with corrupting their deen, which was a greater evil/harm, eventuated in him perpetrating the least harmful. Furthermore, damaging the boat was an evil/harm; however, seizure of the boat forcibly by the king was a greater evil/harm, so he perpetrated the least of them (in terms of harm). The issues of jurisprudence and or ijtihaad enter into this from that which is innumerable.”
-القواعد والأصول الجامعة-
Indeed the story of Khidr is an excellent example of weighing the consequences of action in order to achieve the most beneficial outcome; however, this will never be achieved by someone ignorant to the goals and intent of the Islamic Legislation and its guidelines, principles, and precepts applied to make manifest its goals. Thus those who act haphazardly as pertains to boycotting, warning, criticizing, hating, and so forth; the biggest proof illustrating their ignorance to these principles is the adverse and negative condition that results from their actions, and Allah’s aid is sought from their stupidity.
Related Principles
لا ضرر و لا ضرار
“Neither Harm Nor Reciprocate Harm”
This is a principle from the major principles in Al-Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah in which a method of approach in achieving benefit is ramified. Additionally it is a foundational principle from which an abundant of principles branch forth whose implications illustrate the suitability of Islam in every time and place.
Sheikh Salih As-Sadlan said: “This tremendous principle is labeled in many of the books of Al Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah as ‘The harm is abated’ the authors placed it therein in accordance to what we mentioned (of its articulated phrase or expression) as evidence and a foundation for it; however, its uttered expression is -actually- the noble wordings of a prophetic narration that is counted among his extensive (i.e. in meaning) speech made a criterion for the entire path related to Al Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah.” -القواعد الفقهية الكبرى و ما تفرع عنها-
Sheikh Abdul Ghani Al-Mujaddadi Ad-Dahlawi said: “The apparent of the narration prohibits every type of harm unless there is evidence, on account that the indefinite article within a negative clause envelopes all (of what the indefinite article suggests within the Arabic language).”
-إنجاح الحاجه شرح سنن ابن ماجة-
إذا تعارضت المصلحة و المفسدة قدّم أرجحها
“If A Benefit And Harm Are Mutually Clashing Give Priority To The More Preponderate”
Sheikh Sulaiman Ar-Ruhaili stated while expounding on this principle: “If mutual clashing occurs between a good and an evil in which it is not possibly to separate the two (due to them being coupled); on the contrary, if the good is enacted it (consequently) makes necessary the occurrence of the evil, or abandonment of evil makes necessary the abandonment of good, then in this case the preponderate as relates to the benefit of the good and or the harm of the evil is enacted. Hence the evil is tolerated if it results in a benefit far greater than it and there is no achieving the good except by way of it. Likewise abandonment of good, (if and) when that good necessitates for an evil circumstance the increase of harm greater than it.” -قواعد تعارض المصالح والمفاسد-
This is very important as some circumstances -in which good is attempted- can result in harm; however, it doesn’t mean that it is dismissed or left off. If one does an action that produces both good and bad, then both are examined as relates to what is more plentiful. If evil is more plentiful then the action is left off; but if good is more plentiful then the action is enacted despite the fact that evil is coupled with it. Thus the examined is that which is more plentiful from (comparison to) what is minimal, what is more widespread from (comparison to) what is restricted, etc.
يتحمل الضرر الخاص لدفع ضرر عام
“Tolerating A Particularized Harm In Order To Repel A Widespread Harm”
This principle is as it suggests, allowance of a harm to befall in a restrictive and particularized sense in order to repel a harm that is widespread, all encompassing, and significant in nature.
Sheikh Salih As-Sadlan said: “Examples of that are: severing the hand of the thief, embargo on a criminal enterprise (i.e. its members) and executing them, the (varying types of) scolding and punishments, criticism of witnesses in front of the judge, and similar to that from what holds greater magnitude as pertains to the widespread advantage and alienation of harm from the community, and Allah knows best.”
-القواعد الفقهية الكبرى و ما تفرع عنها-
اختيار أهون الشرين أو أخف الضررين
“Choosing The Lesser Of Two Evils And The Lighter Of Two Harms”
This principle has different variations as relates to its wording. Among them are “The More Severe Harm Is Quailed By The Least Harm” and “If Two Harmful Matters Compete Commit What Is Least In Harm” and others similar to these two, and although the wordings differ the meanings are the same. This Principle is best explained by a verse that clearly illustrates its intent, in fact this verse and those similar to it are that from which the principle is derived, thus you find it oft-repeated in the books of Al-Qawaa’id Al Fiqhiyyah whenever this principle is discussed. Allah says:
يسألونك عن الشهر الحرام قتال فيه قل قتال فيه كبير و صد عن سبيل الله و كفر به والمسجد الحرام و إخراج أهله منه أكبر عند الله والفتنة أكبر من القتل
“They ask you about the prohibited months and fighting therein; say ‘Fighting therein is a great transgression, but greater than that with Allah is hindrance from Allah’s path, disbelief in Him, blockage from access to the Al Masjid Al Haram, and expelling its people. So strife/calamity is more worse than killing…” Al-Baqarah: 217
Sheikh Sulaiman Ar-Ruhaili said concerning the verse and its implication as relates to this principle: “There is an elucidation within it concerning the disbelievers and their vindictiveness towards the believers as relates to battling during the prohibited months. Although this is corruption, that which the infidels were upon of disbelief in Allah, hindrance from His path, trying the believers on the basis of their religion, and attempts at reverting them back to polytheism are a worser and graver corruption than fighting during the prohibited months. Therefore Allah says even though taking lives therein is evil, The occurring calamity of disbelief coupled with its perpetrators ostentation is greater in magnitude than that. Hence the greater of the two corruptions/evil is repelled by implementation of the least of the two.”
-قواعد تعارض المصالح والمفاسد-
May Allah bless us with comprehension of these and other principles that are crucial when attempting to achieve benefit and repel harm.
Fourth: Boycotting Is A Legislated Act Of Worship Implemented Solely To Please Allah And Be Brought Close To Him
Sheikh-ul-Islam said: “If this is understood, then (we know) the legislated boycott is from the actions Allah and His Messenger -sallahu alaihi wa sallam- command. So obedience necessitates that it is solely done for Allah’s sake along with being in accordance with His command. Consequently, whoever boycotts due to desires, or implements a boycott not sanctioned has exited from this, and how plentiful are the souls that act according to its desires assuming it to be done as obedience to Allah.”
From the rudimentary affairs of Al-Islam is no act of worship and obedience is accepted by Allah unless it is done sincerely for His sake and seeking reward from Him. This is a clear prerequisite for the validity and acceptance of the action. If it is absent, quite simply put, the act of worship is absent i.e. not accepted by Allah.
Sheikh Hafidh ibn Ahmad Al-Hakami said: “So understand -May Allah be merciful with you- that there is no benefit, success, salvation, goodly life, happiness within the two abodes, and salvation from disgrace in this worldly life nor punishment in the next life except with knowing the first obligation upon human beings and enactment of it. It is the very affair for which Allah created them, and made with them a covenant. He sent to them messengers on account of this affair, revealed the scriptures, created this worldly life and the next, and created paradise and hell. On account of it the inevitable will be actualized and the event will befall (i.e. the day of resurrection), the scales will be erected, the scrolls will be spread open, (true) wretchedness and blissfulness will be, and on account of this affair the light will be divided. Hence whomever Allah does not make for him light, then there will be no light for him. This affair is knowing Allah, and His divinity, lordship, names and attributes coupled with singling Him out alone with respect to that. Additionally it is to know what nullifies it or some of it from polytheism…” -معارج القبول-
Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih Al Uthaymin said: “Sincerity to Allah is that a man intends by his acts of worship the being brought close to Allah and arrival at His abode of honor (i.e. Paradise), insomuch that the servant is one who is sincere to Him with respect to his intent, love, and exaltation of Him. He is sincere to Allah inwardly and outwardly, he doesn’t desire by way of his worship anyone or thing except Allah and arrival at Paradise.” -شرح أصول الستة-
This is the case with all acts of worship generally, and included within that is the legislated boycott. If implemented, it should be in the manner that Allah intents consequently being done to please Allah, requesting by it reward from Allah.
Bakr ibn Abdullah Abu Zaid stated: “The legislated boycott of the corrupt from the innovators and the immensely sinful is worship, and worship necessitates its two pillars. The first is sincerity and it is the scale for actions inwardly. The second is conformity to the Sunnah and it is the scale for actions outwardly. Thus it is incumbent for the boycott to be done sincerely along with compliance (to the Sunnah), as boycotts on account of the self’s desires nullifies sincerity. Likewise boycotting in a manner contradicting commands nullifies conformity (to the Sunnah).” -هجر المبتدع-
Although it is impossible to determine the intent of others, there are some boycotts that are done for reasons so ridiculous and totally devoid of any principles today that it is difficult to fathom it being for Allah’s sake, and Allah is He who is well acquainted with the innermost core of a thing.
Lastly, there are more points of benefit within this verdict that could be further clarified; however, it’s not my desire to prolong this article especially considering the fact that what has been reviewed is tremendous in magnitude, thus it is hoped that the reader internalizes what was presented making it apart of his essential understanding with regards to these affairs in order for benefit to be achieved when applying it, and Allah knows best. May Allah send His peace and lofty commendations upon our Prophet, his family, and all of his companions.
Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf Al Anjelesi.
Published on the 7th of Safar 1444AH/ the 3rd of Sept 2022.
