was opposite him. He said, “O Messenger of Allah, give it to Abu Bakr,” fearing that he would give it to the Bedouin. But the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, declined and gave it to the Bedouin, saying what the hadith states. In Muslim’s version, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Those on the right, those on the right, those on the right.” Anas said: “It is Sunnah, it is Sunnah, it is Sunnah.”

I say: It is remarkable that many eminent people persist in مخالفة this Sunnah—indeed, this social etiquette uniquely instituted by Islam—in their private gatherings, where no objection to its application need be feared other than departing from the custom of their forefathers. Their neglect of this authentic Sunnah, relying on the philosophy that I refuted above, has led them themselves to contravene it when they did not practically adhere to it: thus, with their knowledge, the server begins with their leading figures and rulers, even though their philosophy does not apply to them!

When I say this, I am aware that they persist in this violation on grounds of wisdom, policy, and tact, and that, because of the corruption of souls and morals, they have no other choice. Yet I say: if they adhered to this Sunnah in their private gatherings, and one of those rulers attended, the situation would be reversed, and those rulers would be compelled to accommodate the people of the gathering—especially since they are politicians. Then this Sunnah would spread to the private gatherings of the political class as well.

This issue resembles, in both its positive and negative aspects, the matter of standing for one who enters. When this Sunnah was abandoned under the pretext of showing respect and honour to people of knowledge and virtue, it gradually developed into standing for people of no consequence whatsoever, and then for the openly sinful and depraved—indeed, even for the enemies of Allah. Will anyone take heed?