Full Lecture Transcript (Cleaned)
Part 1: The Methodology of Naming Scholars — 0:00
Somebody asks: what is my opinion of a specific doctor who apparently denies hadith and is gaining a large following?
I want to divide this into three parts.
First: you will rarely ever hear me mention any person by name. This goes against the Sunnah. When the Prophet wanted to correct something, he would say "what is wrong with some people who do this" — he concentrated on the action or the idea, not on the person. The covering up is the default. Besides, how do you know this person will not change?
The second reason is more practical. In our community, warning against scholars has lost all effectiveness. When I see one Mawlana warn against another Mawlana, nobody cares. They are used to it. You end up preaching to the choir — only those who wouldn't have listened to the other scholar anyway will heed your warning. If anything, saying "don't listen to Dr. X" will cause many curious people to go home and Google him. With the internet, knowledge is now completely democratized. You cannot ban someone by naming them.
Furthermore, when people who are not qualified begin warning against others by name, they carve out a reputation for themselves through negativity. Some of our scholars from the past said: if you want to become famous, go to hajj and do something scandalous. You carve out a name for yourself through negativity. The best way to refute someone is to present a positive alternative — you will not build your da'wah by tearing down other people's da'wahs.
There is also the issue of contemporaries warning against contemporaries. Our scholars said: do not give weight to this, because Shaytan gets involved even in the hearts of scholars. Imam Bukhari and Imam Yahya al-Dhuhli were both from Bukhara and had a major verbal dispute. Maybe unconsciously my goal in warning against someone is my own popularity, not protecting the truth. That is why our scholars historically said: criticism of contemporaries should be disregarded.
Part 2: The Specific Case — 7:00
Whenever you say "so-and-so says X," and then you go to a scholar for a verdict, realize: that scholar is not responding to so-and-so. He is responding to you and your filtered summary. Our Prophet said: "If the situation is as you have described..." He gave that caveat. When you come to me and say "my sheikh says this," I don't know what that sheikh really said. Maybe you heard five words and missed ten. Maybe you misunderstood the context. This is confirmation bias — you will subconsciously pick the evidence that confirms what you already believe about this person.
In the specific case of the person asked about: I did research on him through my own project, and in fact he does not deny the Sunnah. What he has done is redefine the Sunnah in a way that differs from our definition. To say he "denies the Sunnah" is not accurate. There is a difference between the two.
Part 3: The Three Categories — 9:00
Category 1 — Denying the obligation to follow the Sunnah: Anyone who says "I do not have to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)" has rejected Islam. This is very simple and unequivocal. The Quran says: "No, by your Lord — they do not have iman until they take you as the judge in their disputes and then find no objection to your verdict." You cannot have Islam without obedience to the Messenger of Islam.
There are two tiny groups that fall into this. In Pakistan, there was Ghulam Ahmad Parvez, who openly said there is no such thing as following the Sunnah. In America, Rashad Khalifa started the "19 theory" and rejected five-times daily prayer, claiming it is not in the Quran. He was eventually killed. His group in Tucson, Arizona still exists and calls itself the "Quranists." They do not pray the standard five prayers. These people are not Muslim.
Category 2 — Denying the preservation of hadith: This is different. Someone might say: "I want to follow the Sunnah — I just do not trust that this book of Bukhari which was compiled 256 years after the Prophet actually reflects what the Prophet said." In that person's mind, they are defending the Prophet from this hadith. They might even say: "If the Prophet stood in front of me and said this, I would accept it — but I don't trust the preservation."
This is not kufr in and of itself. It is a very serious deviation. It is bid'ah. It is dangerous, and it is potentially destroying much of Islam. But technically this person is saying: "I want to follow the Sunnah, I just disagree this particular narration is authentically from the Prophet." That is a different thing from outright rejecting the authority of the Prophet.
The Mainstream: Disagreeing about specific narrations — whether a hadith is sahih or weak, whether an interpretation is correct or not — is normal scholarly activity within mainstream Islam. This is not hadith rejection.
A Final Advice — 12:00
My advice to the questioner and all of us: do not make it your primary concern to put people in boxes and categorize them. You will waste your life talking about others and accomplish nothing yourself. Be more concerned about your own contribution to the ummah. If you feel uncomfortable with someone, simply do not take from them and remain silent. Nobody can criticize you for that. But if you open your mouth and you are not qualified, perhaps on Judgment Day that person can say: "Give me my haqq back" — and what will you say in front of Allah?