The question that arises is of when the prinicple can be applied; in order to encompass this, we must turn to those who are most capable of applying it; the ulema.

The most mentioned proof on the matter is the hadith of Ka’b bin maalik. The story occurs when the muslimeen are ordered to march forth for the battle of Tabook. As is no wonder, Jihad instils fear and hestitation in the hearts of the munafiqeen. Yet, amongst the munafiqeen is 3 mumineen; and amongst them is the great shahabi Ka’b. From here inshAllah I will continue the narration;

“..And the prophet SAW forbade the muslims from talking to us three who remained behind. So we stayed away from the people and their behaviour changed toward us, so much so that the whole land appeared strange as if I did not know it. This continued for us for fifty nights. My two companions stayed in their houses and cried. But as for me, I was the youngest of them and I had more endurance than them. I went out and attended the prayer with the muslims, I would roam the markets, and nobody would talk to me, and I would come to Allah’s Messenger SAW and greet him while he was sitting in a gathering after prayer, and I said to myself, “Did he move his lips to return the salaam to me or not?…”
Bukhari & Muslim

An- Nawai said, “If the abandonment is done with the excuse that the one being abandoned is in a reprehensible state due to innovation or disobedience, etc., or it is done to help strengthen the religion - either of the one abandoning, or the one being abandoned - then it is not prohibited. This is implied by what is confirmed of the Prophet SAW abonding K’ab bin Maalik and his companions, and his forbidding the sahaabah from speaking to them. Similarly it is reported that some of the salaf shunned others.”
Rawdhaah ut- Taalibeen

Imam al- Baghawi
“In it is evidenence for abandoning the people of innovation as a means of discipline. Allah messenger SAW feared hypocrisy from K’ab and his companions when they did not go out (to fight along) with him. So he commanded shunning them until Allah revealed that they had repented, and Allah’s Messenger SAW recognized their innoncence.”
Sharh us- Sunnah

The issue that I wish to address is the total abandonment of deviants and open sinners. As this is contrary to the actual aim of the original principle. One must not forget the deviant is a still a muslim (aslong as the devaincy has not reached kufr).

What I wish to highlight is how we understand what is the real goal of making hijrah from the devaints.

Ibn Abdul Barr explains this in the very same narration that has been mentioned previously.
“The following may be derived from the hadeeth of K’ab: Proof that it is permissible for a man to abandon his brother when innovation or sin appear in him, with the hopes that a such abandonment of his has a disciplinary effect upon him, through its admonishment of him.”
At Tamheed

There has to be an aim in the abandoning; which is preceded by a reason for abandonment. With a muslim we must have in mind the principle of hunsa thunn (good thinking), and the well known narrations of making excuse for your brother. Yet, when the apparent is made clear; then we must deal with it justly.

With excuses aside and the apparent in place, then before one makes tabdee’ (naming one a deviant) there must follow a systematic way of correction. Even though we hate the kufr of the kaffir we still desire and hope for their salvation by accepting Islam. Then why with our muslim brother would we desire his destruction?

I would like to end with a valuable qoute by Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah:
“This hijrah differs for the people who perform it depending upon their strength, their weakness, and their numbers, large or small. The aim of it is to scold the one who is abandoned and discipline him and save the society from a similar outcome. So if the good in doing so is more preponderate as far as one can ascertain, then hijrah until the evil is weakened and diminishes is permissible. But if the one abandoned or others cannot leave the evil but increase in evil due to the treatment, or the one abandoning is weak - so much so that it is improbable that the good will prevail - then hijrah is not allowed.

Rather, being friendly to some people is more beneficial that shunning them. Shunning is more beneficial with some people than friendliness. The Prophet SAW was friendly with some people and he abandoned others. As in the case of the three who stayed home, they were better than many others whom he was friendly with. This is because those people held the reigns of obedience over their tribesmen. The religion derived the most benefit from softening their hearts. These people, they were believers, and there were many other believers like them, so by shunning them, from their sins. This is similar to waging war sometimes and making treaties of peace at others. All of this depends upon the situation and the good expected. The answers of imams like Ahmed and others regarding this topic are based upon this principle…”
Majmu al Fatawa.

Imam al-Khattabi commented: “He wants to take all my wealth means that he wanted to take it all and leave nothing. It appears that the reason why the man asked this question was that he was having to spend on his father, and the amount required would consume all of his wealth, not just what he had to spare. The Prophet did not give him the permission to stop spending on his father, but told him, ‘You and your wealth are for your father,’ which means that if your father needed all of your wealth, he will take as much as he needs, as if he were taking from his own wealth. If you do not have any accumulated wealth, but you have an income, you should earn money and spend it on him.”

Looking at this hadith a relevant thought came to mind. It is amazing how a sperm once in the scrotum of his father; when older in age and greater in strength can forget his origin and arrogantly say, “I am independant of my father.” What a deep blindness arrogance is.

As the synopsis outlines; the book is a based upon manaj and reform. Unique however, in the sense of reflecting upon how the prophets potrayed their ultimate aim; Tawheed.

Despite the Shaykh’s recent changes in his political views, this book is spot on in its call for the starting point for change within society, namely that no example is better followed then that of the Prophets. While being relatively small in size, the book holds a profound message; one that is eternally fundemental.

What is particularly delightful is his explanation of how Tawheed was proclaimed even before the comming of Islam. Yet, the reaction towards it was not of aggression and oppression. But with the comming of prophethood and Islam we see a complete different resposne, the question is asked why? Simply; Islam’s complete call of a way of life including governence with and out of the home. A call all those who appose the way of Allah can not stand; A reality we today still witness. The Islam of; “only within the masjid”, is once again a loud call from the kuffar and misguided muslims.

As for a critisicim of the book; it lacks of extensisve expansion upon a truelly fundemental issue, thus could leave some room for doubters. However, it serves as a good eye opener and introduction to the topic at hand. Well equipped with relevant proofs from ayat and ahadith.

Not ground breaking but well written. 8/10

The book can be downloaded from the following link. http://www.islamtoday.com/Site_book/Thus_taught.pdf