The Albaani Site

Translation from the Works of the Reviver of this Century

Category: Methodology

March 31, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 5 |


 

Questioner: What is the situation with an Imaam who leads the people in prayer and is upon innovation, and all the time whenever we advise him he does not listen, in fact he hates us and is spiteful towards us, is it allowed to pray behind him or not, or does the innovation differ in terms of its … being whatever it is, ya’ni … [i.e., does praying behind him depend on what type of innovation he is upon]

Al-Albaani: Namely, whether it is an innovation which makes one a disbeliever or not?

Questioner: Whether it is an innovation which makes one a disbeliever or not, may Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: Firstly, I don’t know whether you were present at the previous sitting where we spoke about the Shee’ah?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: And that it is not allowed for a Muslim to rush to declare the Shee’ah or others to be disbelievers just because they are Shee’ah, do you remember?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: So it is even more the case that it is not allowed for us to declare someone who at the very least is regarded as being from us and amongst us, from the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, to be a disbeliever except if we see open and manifest disbelief from him.

Especially when, my brother, we live, as I think is clear to you from the previous gathering and this one–and I hope that we are able to have another such gathering or sittings and that is in Allaah the Mighty and Majestic’s Hands–[so I think it is clear] that you understand well that the people are as described by the Lord of the Worlds, “But most of mankind know not …” [Al-A’raaf 7:187]

For this reason it is not allowed for a Muslim to rush into declaring an individual from the Muslims to be a disbeliever as long as he is praying, and you now put forward a question about an Imaam who leads the people in prayer, so, in an authentic hadith it occurs that–and for this reason we encourage the Muslim youth to study the Sunnah and everyone who doesn’t study the Sunnah is in misguidance but the extent [of just how misguided] differs totally [from individual to individual]–in the authentic Sunnah it occurs that [the Prophet said], ‘I have been prohibited from killing those who pray.’

Is it not an analogy a fortiori [qiyaas awlawi] that [consequently] we say that I have been forbidden from declaring the Muslims to be disbelievers, this is an argument a fortiori, like His Saying, the Most High, “And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them [so much as], ‘uff,’ and do not repel them …” [Israa 17:23] to the end of the aayah, so is it allowed for a son to hit his father? It is even less permissible, saying ‘uff’ is haraam so hitting him with your hand is even more severe in harm, this is called qiyas awlawi.

No one denies this, even Ibn Hazm fell into using this analogy sometimes even though he totally rejects [the use of] analogy [qiyaas]. The point is that it has been authentically reported that he عليه السلام said, ‘I have been prohibited from killing those who pray,’ so it is even more correct to [say that] I have been forbidden from declaring those who pray to be disbelievers.

May Allaah forbid it, but when we see open disbelief from someone who prays, whether he is an Imaam or not–and that [is something which] in reality [would] need to be researched specifically–then maybe it would be correct for me to say … rather, then it would not be permissible to declare him to be a disbeliever even if we saw open disbelief from him except after having established the proof against him, and [if] after having done so he [still] was not deterred or inhibited [from that disbelief], it is then that you would not pray behind him and it would not be permissible for you to deal with him as a Muslim.

As for the generality of those who pray now, whether the Imaams or the followers, then the foundational principle is that they are Muslims and it is not allowed to declare them to be disbelievers.

As for the prayer, then no matter what you don’t like about his prayer, whether you are right [in that] or mistaken, your prayer behind him is correct, i.e., let us assume that he prays incorrectly, he is the one who is incorrect in his innovation and you are correct in your judgement that he is an innovator but you have not declared him to be a disbeliever alhamdulillaah, even with this your prayer behind him is correct.

And you will not find this answer in the books of the madhhabs at all, if you have studied one of those madhhabs that are followed today, like the Hanafi [madhhab], or the Shaafi’i one …  the agreement/contract of the Muslims would be dissolved and that which befell the Muslims of the previous generations would befall the Muslims of today, these are tragedies which happened in past Islamic history, and it has been reported that a bigot, and I don’t want to mention which madhhab [he was from], came to a mosque in which the Muslims were praying but not according to his madhhab, so he said, ‘Isn’t it time that this church closed its doors?’

It’s a mosque, the Muslims are praying in it according to one of the four madhhabs, not shee’ah, not khawaarij, not Zaidiyyah and so on, [they were praying according to] one of the four madhhabs, so this bigot says, ‘Isn’t it time that this church closed its doors?’

Similarly another of them who was a Qaadi judging according to the Sharee’ah, so he thought, said, ‘If it were up to me, I would have taken the jizyah from the Shaafi’is,’ just like that.

If we now wanted to implement some of the subsidiary issues present even till today in some of these books, [the result would be that] a Shaafi’i wouldn’t pray behind a Hanafi, and nor a Hanafi behind a Shaafi’i, because from the Hanafi texts [it is stated that], ’It is disliked to pray behind someone who opposes the madhhab.’

[Addressing those present] have any of you studied Hanafi or Shaafi’i fiqh so that we can discuss this issue with him?

‘It is disliked to pray behind someone who opposes the madhhab,’ in fact it could be nullified if the one praying behind a certain Imaam knows that the Imaam’s ablution is not correct and they gave examples of that, [like] if a Hanafi saw a Shaafi’i perform ablution completely and then he touched his wife then such a person’s ablution would be broken, sorry, I made a mistake …  if there were a Hanafi who performed ablution and then touched his wife, his ablution according to the Hanafi madhhabs is correct, but not so according to the Shaafi’i one.

So the Shaafi’i does not hold the prayer to be correct behind him because he regards the ablution to have been broken.  And the total opposite is true if the Hanafi were to perform ablution and then he bled, according to his madhhab his ablution would have been broken, such a prayer would be invalid in the eyes of someone who holds that view. So if there was a Hanafi who adopted the madhhab of Imaam ash-Shaafi’i that no matter how much blood comes out then the ablution is still correct, [a person who holds the other view] will not pray behind him.

Questioner: The Maaliki madhhab or the Hanafi madhhab?

Al-Albaani: No, I’m saying that now we’re talking about two madhhabs, the Hanafis who hold that if someone bleeds, no matter how little, the ablution is broken but if he touches a woman his ablution is sound, and conversely you have the Shaafi’is who say that touching a woman breaks the ablution but bleeding, no matter how plentiful, does not.

Salvation is found in embarking on the ship of salvation, the Sunnah.

Listen now to the answer from the Sunnah.

He عليه الصلاة والسلام said concerning the Imaams who lead us in prayer, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.” [Bukhaari, no. 694].

No answer or ruling more comprehensive then this can be found.

So I wanted to show that through such meaning and such a ruling it is possible to bring the Muslims together.

Wallaahi, as for [one person saying], ‘Your madhhab is such and such but my madhhab says this,’ then this is division which we have been prohibited from, “And do not be of those who associate others with Allaah. [Or] of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every faction rejoicing in what it has.” [Rum 30:31-32]

Perhaps you have obtained your answer, inshaa Allaah.

Let us have another question …

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 539.

2 Comments
March 29, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 4 | Al-Albaani Asked About Praying Behind the Quburis [People Who Fall Into Shirk Connected to the Graves]


 

Questioner: Another cassette reached us which had some of your statements regarding the fighting in Afghanistan and your fatwa about the permissibility of praying behind the grave-worshippers [Qaburis], so the people differed [after hearing this fatwa of yours], O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: “… and they will not cease to differ, except whom your Lord has given mercy …” [Hud 118-119], this is the text of the Noble Quraan, “And if your Lord had willed, He could have made mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ, except whom your Lord has given mercy.” [Hud 118-119]

So differing is something very normal and there is no escape nor deliverance from it except by sticking to the Book and the Sunnah, for this reason, if some differing does occur then two things are obligatory on those who have differed:

The first is that this differing should not be a cause for disunity [and that it should not be] differing which leads to disunion/separation.

The second thing is that they should return to Allaah and His Messenger in that [issue], as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said in the Quraan, “… and if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allaah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allaah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.” [Nisaa 4:59] And I believe that in many issues [people either] go too far or fall short.

In many issues there is excessiveness and negligence. Many of our brothers who cling to the Sunnah hold that one should not pray behind innovators but I say: these innovators, in our ruling about them based upon what is apparent to us, are either disbelievers or Muslims. So if they are disbelievers then praying behind them is not correct unanimously. And if they are Muslims then the prayer behind them is correct even if they are from the innovators or are misguided in some issues which they have left the Sunnah in.

And we have a hadith in Sahih Bukhari from Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, where he said that Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said concerning the Imaams, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.” [Bukhaari, no. 694].

And another hadith also from Sahih Bukhari that a ruler in one of the cities, I think it was Medinah, during the time of the Amawis, his name was Uqbah ibn al-Walid as far as I recall, led the people in the morning prayer one day with four rak’ahs [instead of two]–because he was drunk, having drunk alcohol, so he didn’t know what he had prayed, and from his misguidance was that after he gave salaam to end the prayer he said [to the people], ‘Shall I give you some more [i.e., make it even longer]?’ He prayed four rak’ahs for fajr and yet along with that he said, ‘Shall I give you some more?’

The hadith is in Sahih Bukhari, [and Imaam Bukhaari is] the one who narrates the hadiths exactly as they are, and he didn’t relate to us that those Salaf repeated the prayer which that man led them in as four rak’ahs, why? Because of that first hadith [I mentioned to you, i.e.,], “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.”

This is from one angle. The other angle is that there is no doubt that many of these innovators wanted what was correct but missed it, for this reason our obligation is to try to direct and guide them and not to take them as our opponents and enemies. And this issue is contingent upon what I mentioned just now: that as long as they are Muslims then they have the same rights as us and the same responsibilities.

And if they leave the fold of Islaam and become disbelievers like those who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood, for example, then it is not correct to pray behind them, but such people are not called innovators. The innovators are those like the Khawaarij, the Mu’tazilah, the Murji’ah–the Imaams of Hadith used to report hadith from them with the condition that they be truthful in that which they were reporting and had memorised their narrations and they did not declare them to be outside the fold of Islaam but gave them the ruling they deserved which was that they had left the Sunnah.

For this reason we do not become enthusiastic in warning the people from praying behind innovators, rather, many times I am asked openly, ‘Imaam so and so seeks intercession with the Awliyaa and the righteous, should we pray behind him?’ I say: yes, has he left the fold of Islaam through that … [tape cuts off here] …

And through this method, in my view, it is possible to bring together the views and differences [found] amongst the Muslims. As for if we were to pass the judgement that the one who innovated one innovation or many in Islaam has left Islaam then the distance [caused by] differing will increase between us and the Muslims, and this, without doubt is not allowed.

This is my opinion concerning praying behind the innovators, I don’t know if you have any comments that we can listen to and benefit from?

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: And you.

Questioner: Because … your old or previous stance … and it was a stance which … ya’ni, was strong concerning them, this became the foundation of those youth with us, it became a foundation which is difficult for them to leave.

Al-Albaani: The previous stance? What was it?

Questioner: Shaikh it was the categorical stance towards the innovators, even with us our stance regarding the innovators [became such] that everyone who seeks intercession is an innovator, everyone who seeks succour [with the Awliyaa] is an innovator, in fact, it reached such an extent that everyone who doesn’t move his finger in tashahhud [is an innovator] … i.e., a stance which was not good in this affair …

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: So it has become, O Shaikh, ya’ni, the foundation of the youth’s stance is that there should be severity towards the grave-worshippers, towards those who seek intercession [through the righteous etc.], total severity.

Because frankly, O Shaikh, the situation of the grave-worshippers where we are is clear and manifest, and their seeking aid from other than Allaah is clear and none of them hide it, in fact they show enmity to the Ahlus-Sunnah through that, indeed they sometimes plot against the Ahlus-Sunnah, as is present now, and this has resulted in problems, so when they [i.e., those youth] heard this fatwa [of yours], the reality was that some of them were looking left and right [not knowing what to do], except that, alhamdulillaah, the stance of the people of knowledge with us was clear and they understood what you meant, O Shaikh, so alhamdulillaah, they clarified the situation.

Al-Albaani: Whatever the case, may Allaah bless you. What you mention concerning your country is in all countries, i.e., that the people of innovation fight the Ahlus-Sunnah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 337.

1 Comment
March 29, 2012

When Can a Person Say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so?’


Questioner: When can I say, ‘I have established the proof against a certain person?’

Al-Albaani: Firstly, it is obligatory here that both people are taken into consideration, the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against. If the one establishing the proof really is a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah, then this is the first condition.

The second is that he be eloquent and clear in what he says such that he is able to present the knowledge that he has to the people in a clear Arabic tongue, if he is an Arab, and if he is a non-Arab then similarly the situation does not go beyond what we mentioned of being capable of clarifying [what is required], as the Quraan indicated in His Saying, “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them …” [Ibraaheem 14:4] i.e., if the one establishing the proof has been granted eloquence and clarity in his language or in the language of his people and as we mentioned before has knowledge, it is then that he is able to say, ‘I have established the proof,’ [but] this is [only] regarding that which is in relation to him–the other side remains.

[Namely,] does the other person [against whom the proof is being established] have the understanding and perception and mental preparedness to accept–sorry, I made a mistake, [let me say this] so that you understand it clearly–is he mentally prepared to understand and not [just] accept, because the proof may be clear and plain, but is still not accepted by the one who turns away, or the mushrik, the kaafir.

But I want to repeat what I mean to say again, so: if he has the ability to understand the proof, then if the first condition is met in that person who is trying to establish/clarify the proof, and thereafter it becomes evident to this person that the one against whom the proof is being established has grasped the topic through his proofs and his clarification, at that time it is possible that he can say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so.’

I personally find it difficult to picture that the statement of a person that, ‘I have established the proof against so and so,’ is in agreement with reality, it is difficult for me to picture this situation. Because I don’t find–rather I can hardly imagine that the conditions [I mentioned earlier] be met in the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against, for the issue may be defective on one of the two sides, and thus it is not correct to say, ‘I have established the proof against so and so,’ this is from one aspect.

The other aspect is [to ask] what is the point of the saying of the one who claims that, ‘I have established the proof against so and so?’ Is it to declare him to be a disbeliever? Declaring him to be a disbeliever … nothing will be the decisive boundary between him and disbelief except the sword, so if he chooses disbelief over the sword then he is a kaafir without any doubt, but as for us where today we live in a state of confusion and freedom which has no bounds, and a person is free to say and do whatever he wants, so we say what is the purpose behind saying, ‘I have established the proof against someone?’ is it to declare him to be a disbeliever? You can’t say that, ‘I have established the proof against him and so he is a disbeliever,’ because what we just mentioned stands in the way of that.

Thus, nothing remains except to entrust this person’s affair to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, for He is the One who knows the reality of the one establishing the proof and the one it is being established against, i.e., [He is the One who knows] whether the proof has been established against the person or not. And your Lord is the One who knows what is in the breast of man and so He is his judge.

As for us, then we go by what is apparent from any Muslim who declares that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His Messenger.

Only in an extremely rare case can I picture that [on one side] there is a real scholar of the Book and the Sunnah and that on the other there is the one who the proof is being established against and who has actually had the affair conveyed to him and has understood it but who then opposes it and disbelieves, such a person would be the one concerning whom it would be possible to say, ‘He has disbelieved.’  Even though in our society there is no major benefit which comes about through this, because the Sharee’ah laws are not implemented, this is what I have.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 24.

Leave a comment
March 26, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 3 | The Ruling on Praying in Mosques Which Have Many Innovations in Them and on Praying Behind an Imaam Who is an Innovator


Questioner: What is the ruling on praying in mosques which have many innovations in them, and following on from that, [what is the ruling on] praying behind an Imaam who is an innovator?

Al-Albaani: This is a question which is asked very often these days, and even though from one angle it shows signs of something good from another it bodes evil.

It shows signs of being something good in that those people who are keen on [implementing] the Sunnah are increasing day by day, alhamdulillaah, and they have started to pay attention to the many innovations found in the mosques and Imaams and muezzins and so on and for this reason they avoid praying in those mosques that are full of innovations and [avoid] following the Imaams who oppose the Sunnah in many of the things they do in their prayers.

So this is something good–but for how long will we carry on asking questions like this?

And I always and forever repeat two things: the first is related to following [i.e., praying behind] an Imaam who is an innovator and that it is from the Sunnah to pray behind every righteous or sinful person, this is a point of creed, mentioned in the aqidah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, [i.e.,] praying behind every righteous or wicked person, which is something contrary to what the Shee’ah do.

For the Shee’ah do not hold it to be valid to pray behind anyone except–[and here] I will not only say that they do not hold it to be valid to pray behind anyone except the Shee’ah–no, they are even more misguided than that, [for they say that prayer is not valid] except behind an infallible Imaam and naturally in their eyes such an Imaam can only be from the Shee’ah, from the Ahlul-Bait.

So the Salaf laid this principle down for us: that we even pray behind a wicked sinner, why?

Because in many hadiths it has been reported that prayer behind the tyrannical or oppressive Imaams is permissible, like his saying عليه السلام reported in Sahih Muslim, “There will be rulers over you who delay the prayer from its correct time, so if you meet them, pray the prayer at its correct time and then pray it with them, for it will be an optional prayer for you.”

And in another hadith which is more important, encompassing and greater, he said about the Imaams, “If they lead the prayer correctly then they and you will receive the rewards, but if they make a mistake, then you will receive the reward for the prayer and the sin will be theirs.” [Bukhaari, no. 694]. [Thus] what concern is it of a person’s when he is praying behind an innovator whether he [i.e., the Imaam] is praying according to the Sunnah or opposing it?

If he [i.e., the Imaam] is correct in his prayer then the reward is for him and us and if he makes a mistake then the sin is on him and the reward is for us, so we gain in both situations, just like [a person using] a saw, [whether  he] pushes forward with it or pulls it back [on what he is cutting, either way it will cut and so he gains].  If we pray behind a Sunni Imaam then the reward is for us and if we pray behind an innovating Imaam then the reward is [still] for us–but his innovation is on his head and none of its sin reaches us. I always and forever repeat this regarding following these Imaams.

So this is an issue which I have constantly addressed and have mentioned that each Muslim is required to distance himself from praying in mosques that are decorated and full of innovations–but Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم spoke the truth when he said, ‘Indeed Islaam began as something strange and will return to being strange …’ nowadays it is rare that you will find a mosque which does not have an innovation or decorations by which they seek nearness, so they think, to Allaah, the Blessed and Most High.

If both types of mosque were present [i.e., ones with decorations and innovations and others without], I would have said that you should not pray in those mosques that are decorated and which have those innovations for it has been established from Ibn Umar, may Allaah be pleased with him, that he entered a mosque to pray the midday prayer when [all of a sudden] he was taken aback by a man calling out and saying, ‘The Prayer! The Prayer!’ after the actual call to prayer had been announced, so Ibn Umar said to the person with him, ‘Let us leave this mosque for there is innovation in it.’

If we wanted to copy this action of Ibn Umar’s in this age of ours we would have to stick to our houses for hardly a mosque can be found except that it is decorated … the carpets/prayer rugs and the images they are full of is enough, sometimes they have forbidden images, either they will have a forbidden image like a horse or something like that, a lion, or two crosses or something which resembles that.  So there is hardly any mosque except that it has that which distracts [a person]–but, ‘Some evil is less than others [in severity].’

If the matter centres around us praying on our own at home and praying in decorated mosques in which the Imaams are innovators then we repel the greater evil with the lesser evil, especially when we are not responsible for that greater evil and nor did it emanate from us, it having done so from those other people.

If we hold back from the congregational prayer then we have sinned and opposed the Saying of our Lord, “And establish the prayer and give zakah and bow with those who bow [in worship and obedience].” [Baqarah 2:43]

This is a point we must not forget, “And establish the prayer and give zakah and bow with those who bow [in worship and obedience].” And what is that point [which we must not forget]? ‘Establish the prayer …’ i.e., perform it perfectly, ‘… and bow with those who bow …’ i.e., with the Muslim congregation.

So if we leave the congregational prayer in those mosques–[bearing in mind that] we are not responsible for the decorations in them or for the incorrect way that some of the Imaams perform the prayer therein, we are not responsible for both of these wrongs–but if we pray at home we will be responsible for having opposed our Lord’s Saying, i.e., ‘… and bow with those who bow …’

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 190.

Leave a comment
March 25, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 2 | The Ruling Concerning the Youth Boycotting Those Mosques in Which the Imaams Fall Short in Implementing the Sunnah


Questioner: There are some youth in Morocco and Poland and other countries who boycott the mosques of the innovators, for example, [those who perform innovations such as] sending salaah on the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم in unison, reading the Quraan in one voice, they do not give due attention to the Prophet’s Sunnah صلى الله عليه وسلم …

Al-Albaani: Like?

Questioner: … straightening the rows during prayer, saying Aameen loudly, and they also recite the Quraan in unison [as I mentioned above] and other things too.

Al-Albaani: From the mistakes of these Imaams boycotted by that group [of youths] you are speaking about is that they [i.e., those Imaams] do not establish the Sunnah, correct? [i.e., that is what you’re asking, right]?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: This [itself] is something which is considered to be in opposition to the Sunnah: i.e., boycotting a mosque because of the shortcomings of the Imaams of these mosques in implementing the Sharee’ah rulings and their lack of due concern for the Prophetic Sunnah does not make it permissible for those keen on following the Sunnah to boycott those mosques–except if it is to leave a mosque which has innovations like those [you mentioned] for another mosque which does not.

As for boycotting in the manner described in the question, i.e., a total boycotting of all mosques, then the example of that is like someone who builds a palace but destroys a whole country in doing so.

Since establishing the prayer, establishing the five prayers with the Muslim congregation in the mosques is an obligation, and it is not permissible for a Muslim to turn away from or to be complacent in carrying it out except for a legislated excuse.

It is no excuse whatsoever that mosques should be completely abandoned because some of those who pray there, even if it be the Imaam himself, oppose the Sunnah in many or a few matters–except if it is like what I just mentioned, that a person leaves a mosque which is close to him and goes to another because it is free of innovation, this is something obligatory on those who want to cling to the Sunnah.

This is because in this day and age, if a Muslim wanted to go into such fine detail with the Imaams of the mosques he would have to seclude himself from all of the people, because you will hardly ever find a mosque today which is established on the Sunnah from all angles, this is something impossible.

And that is because firstly, all of the mosques, or most of them, are built with tainted money, and are built in a manner which opposes the Sunnah. You will hardly find a mosque today except that it is decorated and embellished, even Makkah and Madinah, as you know.

So if these people don’t want to pray in a mosque which has an innovation in it, where will they go? They will have to leave all the congregations of the Muslims and will remain in the corners of their homes, praying there. And as such many hadiths would apply to them about the one who opposes the jamaa’ah dying the death of the days of ignorance.

For we find an excuse for a person who leaves a certain mosque to go to another which has less innovations, I do not say that this other mosque does not have any innovations, this does not exist today, but as was said of old, ‘Some evil is less than others [in severity].’

So it is possible that a Muslim can find a mosque close or far from him which establishes the prayer on the Sunnah, but [still] it will be full of engravings and decorations, but he has no say in that.

So today the Muslim [should be] as the Prophet عليه السلام said in some authentic hadiths, ‘Be moderate and aim to do good …’ [Sahih Muslim, no. 7117], as for trying to find the Prophet’s Mosque as it was in his time عليه السلام, then he will not find it today–so will a person then isolate himself from the people by staying in his house and severing his ties between himself and the Muslims in the most sacred and pure of Allaah’s places as is mentioned in an authentic hadith that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said about the best and worst of places, ‘The best places are the mosques and the worst are the markets.’

So if a Muslim wants a mosque which does not have a single breach of the Sharee’ah, it will mean that he will leave the best of places, i.e., the mosques–and this is not allowed, because as you know the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله سلم, and I will not prolong this too much, encouraged and stressed that one should pray with the Muslim congregation in the mosques, rather, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic ordered that in the Noble Quran when He said, “And establish prayer and give zakah and bow with those who bow [in worship and obedience].” [Baqarah 2:43]

Thus, these people who stay away from or who boycott praying in the mosques–they are not doing so based upon any knowledge, for if they were upon knowledge they would have known the principle that when a Muslim is presented with two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two.

So they either pray in these mosques which they have no control over, except for ordering the good and forbidding the evil, they can’t change the evil there with their hands but they can say a good word–so if they leave off praying in these mosques and do so in their houses it would mean that they would have left the legislated principle which [as I just mentioned is that] when a Muslim is presented with two evils, he chooses the lesser of the two.

But I [also] said that if there is a mosque which opposes the Sunnah less [than another] and a Muslim goes there leaving the one close to him, then this is something we order and encourage as far as we are able to do so.

It may be that one of these beginners in knowledge may have read, for example, the narration which occurs in Sunan Abee Dawud that Ibn Umar entered a mosque and heard a man calling out to the prayer, saying, ‘The prayer! The prayer!’ … in Syria after the call to prayer is given they open a window and [a person calls out and] his voice can be heard in the street, saying, ‘O worshippers, the prayer! O worshippers, the prayer!’–when the muezzin said, ‘Come to prayer! Come to success!’ was it in vain [such that this man now has to say these extra words after the call to prayer?] [Calling out with these extra words after the adhaan] is a correction of the One who laid down the Sharee’ah [i.e., Allaah], for this reason [going back to that narration of Ibn Umar], when he entered the mosque and heard that man calling out, he said, ‘This is a mosque which has an innovation in it,’ and he left it.

But this does not mean that one should leave all mosques, but rather that one should go to a mosque which does not have innovations [if he can find one], for this reason these people [mentioned in the question] were only overcome due to their lack of knowledge and their extremism in following the Sunnah and worship, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, sincerely advising his Ummah, ‘Indeed, for every action there is some vigor, and each [instance of] vigor has a certain time, so whoever’s period [of vigor] is towards my Sunnah then he has been rightly guided, and whoever’s is towards an innovation, then he has gone astray.’

They flee from some innovations which they do not have the power to rectify and instead fall into a bigger innovation which they do have the power to change, and thus they fell into the madhhab of Abu Nawwaas who said, ‘And cure me with the disease [itself] …’

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, no. 574.

3 Comments
March 24, 2012

Advice Must Be Accompanied with Proof


 

 

Al-Albaani: He has to advise him, why wouldn’t he advise him?  But he can’t just advise him with mere claims, [saying], ‘Why do you do that? That is not allowed.’  This is not enough because maybe he will greet you with a similar response and say, ‘Why do you do such and such?  That is not allowed.’

So when you want to advise him and do so by reminding him of that which has been narrated from the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم sayings and actions–then the advice will [indeed] be advice, done in the legislated manner.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 79.

Leave a comment
March 24, 2012

Praying Behind the People of Innovation | 1 | There is a Distinction Between Praying Behind Innovators and Mixing with Them


Questioner: How do you deal with a dissenter [i.e., someone who opposes the Sunnah], between those who are too lenient which can lead to tamyee’ in practising the Sunnah, and those who are too harsh/strict which can lead to that which we have heard you mention many times, i.e., the lack of establishing the proof against the dissenter and other things, and I say this so as to not tire you by repeating what you have already mentioned.

But a doubt crops up based upon some actions of the Salaf, like the statement of some of them, ‘The hearts are weak, and sitting with the innovators snatches them away …’ and likewise, the fact that Imaam Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy on him, would drive the people away from al-Haarith al-Muhaasibi.

Al-Albaani: Yes, yes.

Someone Else: He prohibited that his books be read.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: … and dealing with this dissenter according to the scale of his good and bad deeds, i.e., there is a principle which says, ‘We look at the person’s good and bad actions,’ [but] then we have the statements of some of the Salaf regarding driving the innovators away even if they have some good deeds?

Al-Albaani: Yes. That which I hold, and Allaah knows best, is that the statements of the Salaf, are related regarding a Salafi environment, i.e., an environment that is full of strong faith and the correct following of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Companions.

And [this issue you mentioned] is totally like that of boycotting, where a Muslim boycotts another to educate and discipline him, this is a well-known Sunnah. But my conviction, and how many times I’m asked about this, is that I say: our day and age is not right for boycotting, our day and age is not right for boycotting the innovators, because that means that you will have to go and live on the peak of a mountain, that you isolate yourself from the people and seclude yourself from them.

And that is because if you do boycott the people due to their sins or innovations then you will not have the effect which the Salaf used to have when they made those statements encouraging the people to avoid the people of innovation. There is no doubt that that is something which is derived from the directions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم amongst which is his well-known saying, “The example of a good companion (who sits with you) in comparison with a bad one, is like that of the musk seller and the blacksmith’s bellows (or furnace); from the first you will either buy musk or enjoy its good smell while the bellows will either burn your clothes or your house, or you get a bad nasty smell thereof,” [Bukhaari], the well-known hadith, this is like what is mentioned in some places, ‘Your friend pulls/draws you [to whatever he/she is upon],’ ‘Your friend pulls/draws you [to whatever he/she is upon].’

But accompanying/associating with innovators is one thing and distancing yourself from them to such an extent … like that which is asked about often, for example [people will ask], ‘So and so is a Sufi who uses the Prophets and Messengers as intermediaries [instead of calling upon Allaah directly themselves],’ and so on, ‘… and he leads the people in prayer, should I pray behind him?’ I say: pray behind him, so this is one thing and [actually] accompanying and associating with him and benefitting from him is something else.

And I think that which will support me in this distinction and which comes together/agrees with the guidance of the Salaf stated in those words I just mentioned, is that it has reached us that from the aqidah of the Salaf as-Saalih is to pray behind and over every righteous person and sinner, so it will be from harshness that we take these statements to drive the people away from praying behind these Imaams [who lead the prayers in the mosques], Imaams amongst whom it is very rare to find those upon the Sunnah.  The result of doing so would be that the people would have to stick to their houses and suspend the Jamaa’ah of the Muslims, such a thing goes against the statement of the Salaf that it is from aqidah to pray behind every righteous person or sinner.

But what is correct is that we warn these people from mixing with the people of innovation and the Sufis due to what we just mentioned in the hadith and [due to] the example which is a summary of the hadith, that, ‘Your friend pulls/draws you [to whatever he/she is upon].’

This is my opinion, and Allaah knows best.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 511.

Leave a comment
March 12, 2012

Selling Books and Tapes of Those Who Do Not Adopt the Salafi Methodology


Questioner: I work with Islamic cassettes, and I wanted to ask some of the people of knowledge about the responsibility of distributing the tapes of some of those people who do not adopt the methodology of the Salaf, they ascribe, for example, to some of the groups that we are aware of in the Islamic world, like the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon or the Tablighis and so on.

Some of them [i.e., the people of knowledge] ruled that I should not record or distribute these tapes at all and others said [that I should] choose those which I see to be valid and which do not openly oppose the methodology of the Salaf.

I’m still confused even now, and I ask Allaah the Mighty and Majestic to remove this confusion through what you see to be correct and through your direction in this issue, may Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: I have no doubt that the second opinion which you related from some of the people of knowledge is the correct one, because, ‘Wisdom is the believer’s objective, he takes it from wherever he hears it,’ even though this is a weak, inauthentic, hadith which some people in certain countries have become attached to, writing it on plaques and hanging it in prominent places in [their] sitting rooms on the basis that it is a hadith which is established from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, but it is not established, [so even though this hadith is weak] it is sufficient for us that it really is a wise saying, and thus we act upon it and do not show bigotry towards our madhhabs, learning a lesson from the bigotry of those of the other madhhabs.

So we are the followers of the truth wherever that truth may be, and from wherever it comes, so wisdom is the believer’s objective, he takes it from wherever he hears it.

So when you come across an article or a piece of learned research from one of those groups which, unfortunately, does not adopt the methodology of the Salaf, but which contains a reminder by using Allaah’s aayahs … [using] some authentic hadiths of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, then there is nothing which prevents one from distributing these pieces of research through recordings–as long as they do not contain that which opposes the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.

And this is a problem which in reality is not confined to recordings but goes beyond that to written works which are more widespread than this recorded material.

So is it correct for a book distributor or seller to print that which is not in accordance with the methodology of the Salaf, and is it permissible for him to sell such books? The answer is that maybe no book is free of certain conflicting statements, and it is the following two things that have to be taken into consideration:

The first is that the book, or tape, is not something which is calling to a methodology which opposes that of the Salaf as-Saalih.

Secondly, that that in it which is correct be more than its mistakes, for as Imaam Maalik, may Allaah have mercy on him, said, “There is none among us except that he rejects [things that other people may say or do] and has his speech rejected, except for the person of this grave, i.e., the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم).” So for this reason these two principles must be taken into consideration concerning recorded material and printing books and selling them.

And if you were asking about recordings which do not contain any opposition to the Salafi methodology then I do not see any objection whatsoever to distributing them just because the one talking in them is not Salafi in his methodology but rather is a khalafi, or a hizbi, or similar to that. This is what knowledge and fairness demands, and what the attempt to bring together the differences present today, unfortunately, between the Islamic groups demands. This in summary is my answer to what you asked about.

Questioner: As a completion of this issue, some of those who hold that such things should be prevented say that by distributing the statements or tapes of people such as these there is a recommendation [tazkiyyah] of their methodology as though it is an approval of everything that they say.

Al-Albaani: I think there is exaggeration in that statement. If we were to assume that a man wrote a book in which he gathered hadiths about the words of remembrance [dhikr] from Sahih Bukhari, all the while not being someone who is Salafi in methodology, how can such a statement be applied to him? And what is the relation between distributing this material and supporting his methodology? No, by distributing this book of his we are supporting our methodology because he tread our way by choosing that which is authentically reported from our Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, so I think that such a statement is an exaggeration, and Allaah knows best.

Fataawaa Jeddah, 9.

1 Comment
March 10, 2012

Calling to the Truth is Coupled with Answering Those who Spread Falsehood


Questioner: We see many of the people who attribute themselves to the Salafi methodology constantly attacking the Salafi methodology and its representatives.

Al-Albaani: And its?

Questioner: And its representatives from the Imaams of the Salaf, like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: Constant in this attack, not letting up. And along with this practice of theirs we do not hear an outcry or uproar about this aversive action. But when the issue comes to a head and such criticism reaches this dangerous level, objections [to what they say] arises [but then], for example, [you will hear people say], ‘So and so attacked you and so you defended yourselves by refuting him,’ and those people will reject your refutation and call out saying that there is no time to split the ranks [by answering those people who speak speak against the Salafi methodology], you have experienced this in Syria, they say, ‘This way of doing things is too harsh and you have to use wisdom and tact,’ and that, ‘The enemies of Islaam are the Communists and Ba’athists, and the Naseris …’ and so on.

So we see that this group is constant and unrelenting [in its attack] in books, commentaries and in such and such, so what should we do? Is it from wisdom that we do not criticise their scholars at all? And that we try to clarify the truth without it?

Or as part of da’wah, when the situation reaches such a level, should we clarify the extremism and enmity and deviation [that is directed at the Salafi methodology and scholars], i.e., should we employ both means or give precedence to being silent and [just] continuing in our da’wah [without correcting them] …?

Al-Albaani: No, that is not enough. We have to combine both calling to the truth and answering those who spread falsehood, those who fight the truth and its callers, and this is something very clear from what I have said before. So [we must] make the truth known along with using wisdom and beautiful preaching.

Questioner: People now think that that isn’t wise.

Al-Albaani: We’ve gone back to ‘the people’ again. What have we got to do with the people?

We have to know the truth and get closer to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic by calling to it. All of us are familiar with His Statement, the Blessed and Most High, in Surah al-Asr, “By time. Indeed, mankind is in loss. Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience.” [Al-Asr 103]

So we have to call to the truth and be patient in that, not becoming weary or fed up, no matter what the enemies plot against us, or refute us with, or attribute to us in terms of harshness and even khurooj and so on–it doesn’t trouble us since our Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, said to His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, “Nothing is said to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) except what was said to the Messengers before you.” [Fussilat 41:43].

What are we–we who think that we are callers [to the truth]–what are we in comparison to our Prophet عليه السلام?

Nothing whatsoever.

So if the disbelievers and those people who are misguided speak as a matter of course about the Prophets, and our Prophet عليه السلام is from them too, then we must prepare ourselves for the fact that we will hear many things from those who are astray, we have to prepare ourselves [for that], and be patient in our call so that we will be rewarded, as He, the Most High, said, “Only those who are patient shall receive their rewards in full, without reckoning.” [Az-Zumar 39:10].

And Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Questioner: Jazaakumullaahu khaira.

Al-Albaani: Wa iyaakum.

Leave a comment
March 6, 2012

Principles Concerning Declaring Others to be Disbelievers, Innovators or Open Sinners [Faasiqs] | 4 | Questioning Intentions


 

Questioner: There are refutations going on now in the Islamic world on the students of knowledge along with the scholars and what can be noticed in these refutations is accusing [the other person of having bad] intentions, what is your answer to this or what is your explanation?

Al-Albaani: [Let the one who does that] fear Allaah, what is my answer to that supposed to be? Let them fear Allaah concerning our Muslim brothers, and let them purify their intentions and their hearts from malice towards each other, do not be envious of one another, do not hate each other, and be servants of Allaah, brothers, as Allaah has ordered you to be. O Ustaadh, we always say that the issue with the Islamic world now is its distance from two things, they taken up one of the two, but not the other.

You must have heard what I have said in some of my tapes about the fact that rectification starts with purification and cultivation, you must have heard it. So there is some purification in it [i.e., the Islamic world] but education/cultivation is not found in the Islamic world, this is a problem.

So you will find the students of knowledge who are supposed to be the ones who have the most impeccable manners have only been granted some knowledge [and this too] has become a proof against them and not for them [due to the lack of cultivation upon correct manners].

So what is the solution? Only Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, can resolve it. And whoever from the people of knowledge is eager to tread upon these two pillars, purification and cultivation, then it is upon him to nurture those around him upon this base from childhood, such that when they grow and have matured they will have been nurtured upon correct knowledge, [upon] purification and cultivation.

As for these grown-ups who have gone back to the obligation of purification and have taken up a good portion of that … [yet even] then it is very rare that among them you will find those who have cleansed themselves of base manners, and jealousy, and hatred, and refuge is sought with Allaah.

[This is] something very apparent nowadays, even from some of the elite [students of knowledge/scholars], even from some of the elite, such that I find myself forced sometimes to go by the apparent meaning of His Saying, the Most High, and I mean what I say when I say the apparent meaning, “O you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for] yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you have been guided …” [Maa’idah 5:105], I said, what is apparent, because in the apparent meaning of the aayah there is no order to enjoin the good or forbid the evil–but you know the hadith of Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq when he rejected what some of the people had done and told them that they were misinterpreting the aayah and he mentioned the hadith which orders the Muslims to order the good and forbid the evil. [Ed. Note: i.e., the Shaikh is trying to say that sometimes when he sees the state of the people is as mentioned above, i.e., bad manners etc., and that many of them do not listen or cleanse themselves of these evils, he feels like going by the apparent meaning of the aayah, i.e., just taking care of himself and not bothering with these people since they don’t listen, but the Shaikh says that this cannot be done because the correct understanding of the aayah is as Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq رضي الله عنه mentioned, so the Shaikh was showing how disheartening such things can be].

So the phenomenon which has now become widespread in recent times in Saudi and before that in many Islamic countries, this reality has no cure except to employ the necessary means and to turn back to Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, that He rectify the situation of the Muslims, for there is no reason at all that the callers to the Book and the Sunnah and those who affiliate themselves to the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih … there is no cause whatsoever which makes it permissible for them to split into two groups, many groups in fact, each suffering the other, like it would be if there were salafis and their enemies the Sufis.

[There is no cause for the Salafis to split amongst each other] when they are one group, each of them saying, ‘I am on the Book and the Sunnah,’ even though a certain individual amongst them is not pleased with being affiliated to the Salaf as-Saalih, and this is a problem which happened amongst you, where one of the beginner students, as I heard in a tape of his, said that he does not want to say, ‘I am a Salafi,’ and that whoever insists on that should be ordered to repent and if he does not then he is to be killed, did you hear this?

Questioner: He recanted that statement, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Alhamdulillaah …

Questioner: A tape about that came out.

Al-Albaani: This is what we want.

Questioner: And he explained what he meant, saying that he was talking about the issue of forming parties.

Al-Albaani: May Allaah guide him.

Questioner: Then he said that I repent from this wording.

Al-Albaani: Jazakallaahu khair, this is what we thought of him [i.e., that he would turn back from making such a statement]. But if this indicates anything, then as they say today, [it indicates that] the passion of youth overcomes their knowledge.

This is not a light statement to make, that a person says that if someone attributes himself to the Salaf as-Saalih he should be asked to repent and if he doesn’t then he is to be killed and then to [incorrectly] use as a proof some statements of Ibn Taymiyyah, how far this statement is from that [of Ibn Taymiyyah]. Do you have the tape [where that person said these things]?

Questioner: Shaikh Abdullaah al-Ubailaan told me about this tape. I was in Riyadh a few days ago and he told me about this tape. Inshaa Allaah, if I get a copy I will send it to you, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Jazakallaahu khair.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.

Leave a comment
February 21, 2012

Principles Concerning Declaring Others to be Disbelievers, Innovators or Open Sinners [Faasiqs] | 3 | Is It Allowed to Say Anything Against Someone Who Takes the Opinion of One Shaikh and You Another?


 

[Continuing from the second part of this series which can be found here: Al-Albaani Destroys, ‘If You’re Not With Us You’re Against Us.’]

Questioner: There are some issues, O Shaikh, which some of the people of knowledge with us have differed in, some of them calling those things an innovation and others saying it is permissible, and some of the youth blindly follow and due to the trust they have in the scholar who says that it is permissible, he takes his [i.e., that scholar’s] opinion in the issue, so is it permissible, O Shaikh, to judge this person, like slandering his manhaj or declaring him to be an innovator due to him doing that, and an example of that is acting. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Uthaimeen laid down some conditions for it and holds it to be permissible and Shaikh ‘Abdullaah ibn Jibreen, some Shaikhs like Shaikh Bakr Abu Zaid and Shaikh Rabee ibn Haadi say that it is an innovation, what is your opinion, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Subhaanllaah! Allaahu Akbar! Your question started as something and ended as something else in my opinion. So are you asking one question or more than one?

Questioner: One question, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Then define your question, because I felt that there was more than one. Define your question.

Questioner: The question is about the ruling concerning an individual who goes by the saying of a Shaikh who declares something to be allowable, [declares it] to be permissible to do that thing, and an example of that is acting.

Al-Albaani: Yes, yes.

Questioner: Is it allowed for me, being that I hold acting to be an innovation and this other person holds the view of, for example, one of the major scholars who says it is permissible, is it permissible for me to slander this person’s manhaj by saying that, ‘This is the manhaj of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon in this issue,’ or that such a person can be declared to be an innovator because he took the opinion [of another Shaikh] in this issue, bearing in mind that the person is a blind-follower, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Is it permissible for a scholar to say anything against someone who opposes his opinion?

Questioner: No.

Al-Albaani: Then this situation is even less permissible.  Is the answer clear?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Okay.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And you.

2 Comments
February 20, 2012

Principles Concerning Declaring Others to be Disbelievers, Innovators or Open Sinners [Faasiqs] | 1 |


Questioner: I have a number of questions, may Allaah reward you with good. The first: is establishing the proof against someone a requirement for declaring him to be an innovator or a faasiq?

Al-Albaani: Wallaahi, the answer differs according to the differences found in the countries [the people live in] and in the differences amongst the residents in terms of the presence of scholars who uphold the obligation of educating and da’wah.

Let us give a clear and concise example of that: there is a very big difference between someone who is in the lands of disbelief, a group of people [there] who have newly embraced Islaam, there is no doubt, naturally, that it is not allowed to go ahead and declare such people to be disbelievers or open sinners [faasiqs] or innovators straight away, because they live in an environment where they are new to Islaam and Islamic rulings, this is on one side. [So there is a very big difference between such people and those on] the other side [where there] is a clear Islamic environment, an unadulterated Islamic environment which does not require the proof to be established, because the issue is [already] established by the very nature of this learned, Islamic environment.

These are two totally contrastive examples. So between these two situations there is no doubt that there are a great many examples, some of which will be closer to the first example and others closer to the second, and so on.

So the point of giving this example is to show that it is not allowed to make a statement, whether positive or negative, about that question, so it should not be said that, ‘[The proof] has to be established,’ and nor that, ‘It doesn’t have to be established.’ The answer differs according to the differing states of the people he wants to declare to be disbelievers or faasiqs or innovators.

And the foundational principle here is that it is not allowed to declare Muslims to be disbelievers, and following on from that, [it is not allowed] to declare them to be faasiqs, and following on from that, [it is not allowed] to declare them to be innovators except after the proof has been established due to the well-known aayah and authentic hadiths which have a similar meaning, the well-known aayah being, “… And never would We punish until We sent a messenger …” [Israa 17:15] “… that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches,” [An’aam 6:19] likewise is his saying عليه الصلاة والسلام, which Imaam Muslim reported in his Sahih from the hadith of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, who said, “Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم said, ‘There is no man from this Ummah, Jew or Christian, who hears of me and then does not believe in me except that he will enter the Fire.’

So I say: the foundational principle is that the proof be established [before delivering a verdict] against these three types of people [i.e., the three types being, declaring someone to be a disbeliever, or innovator or open sinner], this is what the ruling centres around. After [understanding] the examples we have given the issue is that whoever knows or is certain that the proof has been established against such and such a person then based upon that it is permissible to declare him to be a disbeliever, or a faasiq or an innovator, and if that is not the case then it is not permissible. This is the answer.

Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, if a Muslim scholar established the proof against a person, whether that be declaring him to be a disbeliever, or an innovator or a faasiq, is it then obligatory upon a person to follow that scholar or does he have the option of establishing the proof himself?

Al-Albaani: It’s not a condition [that he has to establish the proof himself], rather what is obligatory is that he be convinced that the proof has been established on the person who is to be declared a disbeliever, or innovator …

[The second part of this series of questions has already been translated and can be found here: Al-Albaani Destroys, ‘If You’re Not With Us You’re Against Us.’]

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.

Leave a comment
February 17, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about al-Banna | 18 | A Mention of Some Important Principles


Questioner: In the past we read in some hadiths that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم uncovered his thigh and that when the Companions came to see him, Abu Bakr, then Umar [he didn’t do anything, but] when Uthmaan entered he covered it, can’t it be understood from this that uncovering the thigh is permissible?

Al-Albaani: This incident cannot be used to establish a stance to be adopted as part of one’s life, may Allaah bless you, it is limited to this occurrence, we’re talking about social life in general, which the Muslim youth has to live by.

Questioner: I’m with you on that.

Al-Albaani: Be patient. When the Messenger عليه السلام would sit with his Companions and travel with them, pray with them, were his thighs uncovered? Obviously, the answer is no.

These people are uncovered and they pray like that especially when, during games, prayer time comes by and they want to pray.

[And the point I’m going to mention now] is knowledge which we must revive: that the common approach the Messenger عليه السلام took in his life is what we take, as for something he would do whose occurrence was rare, then it is possible that in most cases such a thing has a reason or situation which required the Messenger عليه السلام to leave the norm, and what we are talking about now is an example of that.

So far be it for the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to be among his Companions and to enter the mosque or to sit somewhere whether while travelling or resident with his thighs uncovered. Yes, there is no doubt that this incident [which you mentioned] did occur, but from a fiqh perspective does this show that it is permissible for a Muslim to leave his thighs uncovered during his life in general? This may or may not prove that in specific circumstances it is permissible, like the situation [which I am about to mention and] which is not regarded as being the Messenger’s صلى الله عليه وسلم norm, do you know it?

That he was sitting with his legs hanging over the side of a well, and the weather in Medinah was hot, so he was cooling himself down, and in order to do wudoo part of his thigh was uncovered , this incident does not represent the Prophet’s عليه السلام life, it represents that particular situation he was in.

Yet having said that, there is a knowledge-based point here [which we need to understand]. When the Prophet عليه السلام performed an action and he explained that Allaah’s Legislation for the Ummah is different to that, and in the words of the scholars of fiqh: if his statements oppose his actions then which of them are given precedence?

His statements are given precedence over his actions. Because a statement is universal legislation, it may be possible that an action was carried out due to a particular excuse or due to it being a characteristic exclusive to him, and it is [also] possible that it occurred before a legislative ruling about it was revealed.

For example, we have a hadith in which it is mentioned that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gave a sermon to the people while he was wearing a ring made out of gold, are we now going to say, ‘It is permissible to wear a ring made out of gold,’ because the Prophet wore it? No, he wore it at a time when it was permissible.

You know that the major Companions used to drink wine, and there is a very unusual story which is not well-known amongst the people, it is reported in Sahih Bukhari. The Companions were in a house, drunk, when Ali came and knelt his camels down by the house. His uncle Hamzah came out and cut open their stomachs, when Ali saw that he was extremely upset and went to the Prophet عليه السلام and told him what had happened. The Prophet عليه السلام came to his uncle and reprimanded him for what he had done.

What was Hamzah’s stance? He said a statement which was such that had he said it after alcohol was made forbidden it would have caused him to have committed disbelief and would have caused him to have left the religion, he said, ‘Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?’ Hamzah is saying to his cousin and his Prophet, ‘Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?’ Why? He didn’t understand, he was drunk.

[Here is the full text of the hadith from Bukhari: “Narrated Ali, ‘I got a she-camel in my share of the war booty on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and the Prophet had given me a she-camel from the Khumus. When I intended to marry Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle, I had an appointment with a goldsmith from the tribe of Bani Qainuqa’ to go with me to bring Idhkhir (i.e. grass of pleasant smell) and sell it to the goldsmiths and spend its price on my wedding party. I was collecting for my she-camels equipment of saddles, sacks and ropes while my two she-camels were kneeling down beside the room of an Ansari man.

I returned after collecting whatever I collected, to see the humps of my two she-camels cut off and their flanks cut open and some portion of their livers was taken out. When I saw that state of my two she-camels, I could not help weeping. I asked, “Who has done this?” The people replied, “Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib who is staying with some Ansari drunks in this house.” I went away till I reached the Prophet and Zaid bin Haritha was with him. The Prophet noticed on my face the effect of what I had suffered, so the Prophet asked. “What is wrong with you?” I replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have never seen such a day as today. Hamza attacked my two she-camels, cut off their humps, and ripped open their flanks, and he is sitting there in a house in the company of some drunks.”

The Prophet then asked for his covering sheet, put it on, and set out walking followed by me and Zaid bin Haritha till he came to the house where Hamza was. He asked permission to enter, and they allowed him, and they were drunk. Allah’s Apostle started rebuking Hamza for what he had done, but Hamza was drunk and his eyes were red.

Hamza looked at Allah’s Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he raised up his eyes look in at his face. Hamza then said, “Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?” Allah’s Apostle realized that he was drunk, so Allah’s Apostle retreated, and we went out with him.”]

Questioner: He was drunk, yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes. This was at a time in Islamic history when the legislation was still being prescribed.

For this reason, when a statement comes from the Prophet عليه السلام which opposes his action then his statement is what is relied upon because it is in the legislation, as for his actions then it is left to him عليه السلام [he may either do something] out of an excuse/specific reason, or because it is something particular to him alone, or it may have been before he made a statement about it, before something was legislated, as in the story of the alcohol and things like it.

From this type of incident is the fact that the Prophet عليه السلام was sitting at the edge of a well, with his legs hanging over the side, when Abu Bakr entered and Umar but he didn’t change the way he was, until when Uthmaan came he did so.  So Sayyidah Aa’ishah said that so and so and so and so entered and you did not change the way you were but when Uthmaan entered you covered yourself? So he replied, ‘Should I not feel shy in front of someone who the Angels feel shy of?’

So it is possible that [1] this was before the Prophet عليه السلام said, ‘The thigh is awrah,’ and it is possible that [2] it was after he said it but that he had an excuse and it is possible that [3] there was no [specific] excuse and that it was just something exclusive to him.

Whatever the case, I was talking about some of the Islamic jamaa’ahs, how can they live with no connection between themselves and Islaam, what is the reason? It is because they have not studied Islaam.

I do not mean that it is upon every individual Muslim to become a scholar and to taken it upon himself to carry out the duty of purification [tasfiyyah], no, this must be done by the people specialising in it. So where are the specialists in these groups such that they can be nurtured upon this foundation of purification?

Take Hizb at-Tahrir for example which wants to establish an Islamic state … look at Hasan al-Banna he made a [particular] statement which is as though it is revelation from the sky but along with that his group do not implement it. That statement was, ‘Establish the state of Islaam in your hearts and it will be established for you in your lands.’

Hizb at-Tahrir do not go by this piece of wisdom at all, [instead] they say, ‘We will establish the state first and then afterwards the state will rectify the populace.’  Subhaanallaah!  This is in opposition to logic and the Sunnah of the Prophet who spent long years nurturing a few individuals until a core and the foundation of the Muslim jamaa’ah was formed.

Likewise that which comes under this topic, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allaah an excellent example …” [Ahzaab 33:21] … you will find members of Hizb al-Tahrir … in all groups you will find people who are good and sincere and so on, but as a group they are extremely far from implementing the Islaam which is known as Islaam [i.e., the basics]; as for implementing that pure Islaam, then how far they are from it.

[The founder of Hizb al-Tahrir] Taqiyud-Deen’s books, may Allaah have mercy on him, are full of weak hadiths which have no basis, and upon them he built his ideology and established his group, such that when explaining the hadith that, ‘There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience of the Creator,’ he said it means: there is no obedience to the creation if that person who is ordering the disobedience believes that what he is ordering is actually disobedience, but if he is ordering it as a result of his own ijtihaad [and does not hold it to be disobedience] then it is not disobedience and it is obligatory to obey him.

And based upon this he made it obligatory on every individual in his group to obey their Amir and to submit to him, and not to place knowledge, i.e., the Book and the Sunnah, as a judge over him, since, ‘It is the Amir’s opinion.’

Questioner: By way of ijtihaad.

Al-Albaani: By way of ijtihaad, yes. And a debate took place between me and them, many, many debates, one of them was when we were brought together in the Al-Haskaa Prison in Syria, about fifteen of them, and so I gave them the following example.

Interjector: Should I record this, O Shaikh? [i.e., the person recording the sitting is asking whether the Shaikh wants this part where he mentioned the prison to be recorded, since it is something personal].

Al-Albaani: Yes.

One of them, very zealous, came and so I said to him, ‘What do you say about his saying عليه السلام, ‘Everything which intoxicates is alcohol and all alcohol is haram,’ and ‘Whatever intoxicates in large amounts, then a small quantity of it is haram?’ He said, ‘Of course, these are authentic hadiths and I believe in them.’

I said to him, ‘What do you say, aren’t there some Imaams of the Muslims from the past who performed ijtihaad and said, ‘The alcohol whose [consumption in] small quantities is forbidden is only that which is derived from grapes, as for the alcohol which is made from other things then only the amount which intoxicates is forbidden,’ namely, if a person were to drink two bottles, three, and stayed sober then this is halaal but if he took a sip and got drunk then it is forbidden.’ I said to him, ‘What is your opinion about the scholars who say that?’ He said, ‘Yes.’

The point is I said to him, ‘If our Lord tested the Muslims with an Amir ruling over them who held this opinion, what would you do?’ He said, ‘I would obey him.’

He would obey him even though he believes this is haram, why? Because the hizb told him that, ‘If the Amir believes that it is haram he will not order you to commit a sin.’ Thus, they twisted the hadith which states that, ‘There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience of the Creator,’ [to mean that] there is no obedience to someone who orders one to commit an act of disobedience if he holds it to be a sin, as for if he does not hold it to be a sin then you have to obey him.

This has all been attributed to Islaam in the name of Islaam, and in the name of setting up an Islamic state.

And Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 200.

Leave a comment
February 16, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about al-Banna | 17 | He was not a Scholar Either and a Mention of Blind Hizbiyyah


Questioner: I read [a transcription of] this tape, the topic being the Book and the Sunnah, a topic which in reality there has been much debate and argument over, and the centre of the argumentation and debate is this: some of the brothers in the Islamic world will say to you, ‘I take from the Book and the Sunnah as explained by one of the Imaams,’ for example, Hasan al-Banna, may Allaah have mercy on him.

Al-Albaani: Who?

Questioner: Hasan al-Banna.

Al-Albaani: Okay, yes.

Quesrtioner: You will find his followers now, namely, we’ve heard people say, ‘My brother, I only completely take what Hasan al-Banna said,’ okay, my brother, go back to the Book and the Sunnah … following on from that he will not take from the Book and the Sunnah, and there are many who say such things … okay, all of you say, ‘the Book and the Sunnah,’ [but] come and sit with one of them and the first thing they do is fight, okay, then where is the Book and the Sunnah amongst you?

Al-Albaani: Why do they fight? Because they are hizbis who are not united. Thereafter, [this statement that], ‘Hasan al-Banna is on the Book and the Sunnah,’ this term, ‘The Book and the Sunnah,’ is one which is only made up of a few words but the entire life of a Muslim, every aspect of it, comes under it.

And all claim Laylaa’s love
but Laylaa doesn’t acknowledge it for any of them

Hasan al-Banna, is not a man of knowledge, he was just a man of da’wah, and Allaah benefitted the Muslim youth through him by saving them from the cafe’s and cinemas and so on, there is no doubt or uncertainty about that.

But where are the books of Hasan al-Banna which show his knowledge? His father whose name was Abdur-Rahmaan has some books which show [us] his knowledge, but his son Hasan al-Banna doesn’t have anything other than a few small booklets. These small booklets are like a methodology for his da’wah but they do not show us that the man was a scholar.

So he [i.e., the person you mentioned in the question] will say to you that, ‘I am on the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of Hasan al-Banna,’ this is proof that his eyes are closed and that he has submitted to the desire of blind hizbiyyah [simply] because, ‘he is Hasan al-Banna.’

Hasan al-Banna has a small book about words of remembrance [adhkaar].

Questioner: Al-Ma’thuraat.

Al-Albaani: It’s called, ‘Al-Ma’thuraat,’ very small, I don’t know have you seen it? One of the heads of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon in Syria put it to me to check this book and have it printed with a knowledge-based checking, because he trusted me as someone who specialises in the science of hadith.

I told him I would do so but that I feared my efforts would go to waste. He asked why and so I told him that it was his religious and knowledge-based sentiments which made him make such a suggestion, that I should check Hasan al-Banna’s book, but that the way of hizbiyyah will not let it pass for when it is said to the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon that here is Hasan al-Banna’s book with al-Albaani’s checking, they will put an end to it, because it is very hard and painful for them to see a book by al-Banna with the checking of al-Albaani, why?

Because there is bigotry and blind partisanship … and [indeed that is what happened,] the book was not printed except as Hasan al-Banna, may Allaah have mercy on him, composed it [without al-Albaani’s checking]. What’s in this book? It contains [hadith] from books of the scholars of old, and fiqh of some of the hadiths about adhkaar and ma’thuraat, as far as I can tell, [but] not according to the principles of [the science of] hadith–because he was not from the people of hadith, his father was from the people of hadith somewhat, but he wasn’t. Whereas Ahmad Shaakir was also an Egyptian [but] he was an Imaam in this field of knowledge.

So Hasan al-Banna selected [content for his book], ‘Al-Ma’thuraat,’ as he liked, not based upon knowledge, yet even so you will find people who are bigoted for Hasan al-Banna, this bigotry did not come about due to knowledge at all, [but rather] from blind hizbiyyah, and I said recently that you will see major [members] of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon cut off the connection between themselves and the Messenger عليه السلام and [instead] make their connection with Hasan al-Banna …

So you will find that amongst the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon the religious one or the one who does not want to shave his beard will let a small one grow and make it just like that of Hasan al-Banna. Yaa Jamaa’ah, where are you in relation to the Messenger who is the example [that should be followed] and he is the one about whom our Lord said in the Noble Quraan, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allaah an excellent example …” [Ahzaab 33:21] The defect is that they are not acquainted with the Messenger’s life.

Questioner: For who?

Al-Albaani: Sorry?

Questioner: For who, “… an excellent example for anyone who …”

Al-Albaani: Aah, may Allaah bless you, “… for anyone whose hope is in Allaah and the Last Day …” [Ahzaab 33:21]

So they cut off from the Messenger عليه السلام due to their turning away from studying the Sunnah and due to their preoccupation with politics, sociology, economics, and their calls which are nothing but shouting.

Leave the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon and look at ‘Shabaab Muhammad,’ [they are even] further and further away, their religion is sport and football and basketball, and I don’t know which other such sports there are, would that it were in the way of clinging to the Sunnah and strengthening the foundation, because the Prophet عليه السلام said, “The strong believer is more beloved to Allaah than the weak one, and in all there is good.”

It is not from Islaam that the Muslim imitates the disbelievers, it is not from Islamic manners that he uncovers his thigh, it is not from Islamic manners that he wears the uniform of Jewish scouts, you can’t unless you uncover your thigh, what is this blind following?

It is a confirmation of his saying عليه السلام regarding the ignorant amongst the Muslims, “You will certainly follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit, so much so that even if they entered a lizard hole, you would follow them.”

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Aah.

Questioner: Sorry Shaikh, could I ask you a quick question?

Al-Albaani: Please do.

Questioner: In the past we read in some hadiths that …

Leave a comment
February 8, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 16 | He was not a Scholar


 

Questioner: The first question, both questions, are regarding the book, ‘In the Shade of the Quraan.’  Its author [i.e., Qutb] mentioned at the beginning of Surah Taa Haa that the Quraan is a cosmic/universal phenomenon like the phenomena of the heavens and the earth, what is your opinion about this statement, bearing in mind that he uses the particle of comparison [i.e., the word ‘like’], O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: We, my brother, have said more than one time: that Sayyid Qutb, may Allaah have mercy on him, was not a scholar. He was just an author, a writer and he didn’t know how to express the legislated Islamic creed, especially the Salafi beliefs from it.

For this reason, it is not fitting that we drone on about his statements too much, because he was not a scholar with the meaning of the word that we want, [i.e.,] a scholar of the Book and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih. Many times his expressions are stylistic rhetoric and are not scholarly/knowledge-based ones, and are especially not Salafi expressions, not being from this type at all, and we do not hesitate to condemn expressions such as those nor such tahsbeeh.

The least that can be said about it [i.e., the expression you asked about] is that he did not mean that the Quraan is literally Allaah’s Speech as is the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah and nor does he mean that Allaah’s Speech is metaphorical, as is the creed of the Mu’tazilah. [His statements are] rhetorical, poetic speech.

But I do not hold that we should stop too much at such statements, except to clarify that it is speech which is not permissible in the sharee’ah, and that [at the same time] it is not expressing the creed of the author regarding the Noble Quraan, i.e., is it the actual Speech of Allaah or not?

This is what I believe and this is the answer to the first question.

Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, the second question which is also about the same book, at the beginning of Surah Naml he said about the Quraan and its words/sentences that they are, ‘musical undulations?’ [tamowwujaat musiqiyyah]

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

Questioner: Same answer?

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

Questioner: Okay, this leads us, O Shaikh, to some questions, we see in many of the writings of some authors or those associated to knowledge …

Al-Albaani: Sorry, before you carry on, what did you understand when he said, ‘undulations [tamowwujaat]?’ Does he mean the Speech that emanated from the Lord of the Worlds? Or from Jibreel عليه السلام? Or from our noble Prophet عليه السلام? You will not understand that or that or this [i.e., neither one of the three from that statement of his].

For this reason I say that it is rhetorical, poetic speech, which does not tell us much about the author’s opinion or what he means.

This is the reality; when many authors do write, they pen down expressions of stylistic rhetoric which do not give [us] solid/realistic information [lit: ‘existential answers’ [about what exactly it is they mean]].

Okay, carry on.

Questioner: Even though you say that, O Shaikh, may Allaah bless you, we still find many writers or even [people] from students of knowledge who are influenced by the methodology of the scholars of hadith or who [have some knowledge], for example, in the science of hadith or have knowledge in some issues, [we find that even such people] have been influenced by his [i.e., Qutb’s] methodology.

Al-Albaani: And what is his methodology? Does he have a methodology?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: What is it?

Questioner: It’s [his] being influenced in his statements, in many statements, by the writings of Abul-A’laa al-Maududi, like in his book, ‘Social Justice [in Islaam],’ and his book, ‘At-Tasweer al-Fanni fil-Quraan …’

Al-Albaani: This is a literary style/way [of writing] it is not a scholarly/knowledge-based method/manner [of writing].

Questioner: There is a specific methodology regarding declaring people to be disbelievers [takfir], like slandering the Ummah and declaring [the Muslims in] it to be disbelievers, especially in the book, ‘Social Justice in Islaam.’ The author of the book, ‘Al-I’laam,’ mentioned this about him, az-Zarkashi …

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli.

Questioner: Az-Zarkashi or Az-Zirikli.

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli …

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: He [i.e., Az-Zirikli in his book Al-I’laam] mentioned this about him [i.e., Qutb], that he used to take up this methodology of slandering the entire Ummah, declaring all those around him to be ignorant. So many of the youth have now been influenced by this methodology and they have started calling to his books and his opinions and everything that he has written, so what is your opinion, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: Our opinion is that the man was not a scholar, I said that to you already. What more do you want from me? If you wish for me to call him a kaafir then I am not from those who declare people to be kaafirs, and you are not either?

Questioner: … O Shaikh, I …

Al-Albaani: Listen, I testify along with you, but what do you want?

It is enough for the just, impartial Muslim that he gives every person his right, and as He, the Most High, said, “… and do not deprive the people of their due and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption.” [Hud 11:85]

The man is a writer, passionate for the Islaam that he understood, but he is not a scholar, and his book, ‘Social Justice,’ is from the first things he wrote, and when he did so he was nothing but an author and not a scholar.

But the reality is that in prison he progressed a lot and wrote some pieces which are as though they are written by the pen of a Salafi and not from him. I believe that prison nurtures some souls and awakens some conscience [in people]. So he wrote some words whose title is enough [to show what I just said], i.e., ‘Laa ilaaha Illallaah A Way of Life.’

But if he doesn’t distinguish between Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah and Tawhid ar-Rububiyyah then this does not mean that he doesn’t understand Tawhid ar-Rububiyyah and Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah and that he considers them to be one thing. It means that he is not a faqih, and that he is not a scholar and that he is not able to express the legislated meanings which have come in the Book and the Sunnah.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

Questioner: Don’t you see … ya’ni, this affect and these things that he wrote, ya’ni, that he should be answered/refuted, for example?

Al-Albaani: Yes he should be answered/refuted, this is obligatory, but answering a person who has made a mistake is not limited to a person or people: everyone who makes a mistake in understanding Islaam, understanding it with innovated and newly-invented meanings which have no basis in the Book, nor in the Sunnah nor from our Salaf as-Saalih and the four Imaams who are followed–then it is fitting that such a person is answered/refuted.

But this does not mean that we treat him as an enemy or that we forget that he has some good deeds, it is enough that he is a Muslim, and that he was an Islamic author [writing] according to his understanding of Islaam as I said initially, and that he was killed in the way of his call to Islaam and that the ones who killed him, they are the enemies of Islaam.

As for [the fact that] he had deviated in many or a few issues in Islaam, then it was my belief before this revolution against him was fomented–I was the one who was boycotted here by the Muslim Brotherhood [Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon] under the assumption that I had declared Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever, and I was the one who showed some people that he used to agree with the [belief of] Wahdatul-Wujood in some of what he wrote in the same tafsir [mentioned in the question], but at the same time, I do not deny that he was a Muslim and that he was zealous for Islaam and for the Muslim youth and that he wanted to establish Islaam and an Islamic state. But the reality is:

Sa’d led the camels to water while being completely wrapped up
[with only his hands sticking out].

This is not how, O Sa’d, the camels are taken to water.

Questioner: Are his books to be warned against?

Al-Albaani: Those who do not have correct Islamic education are warned against his books.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good and bless you.

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 814.

1 Comment
February 5, 2012

When he comes, Imaam Mahdi will not be able to do More than what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did


Shaikh al-Albaani said, “O my brother Muslim, know that many of the Muslims today have strayed from the truth in this issue. From them are those who hold it to be a settled fact that an Islamic state will not be established except with the emergence of the Mahdi! And this is a myth and is misguidance which the devil throws into the hearts of many of the masses, especially the Sufis among them–and there is nothing in the hadiths of the Mahdi which indicates that at all.

Rather, all of those hadiths do not go beyond the fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gave glad tidings to the Muslims of [the coming of] a man from his household, and he described him with outstanding characteristics, the most important of them being the fact that he will judge by Islaam and spread justice amongst mankind.

So in reality, he is one of the revivers which Allaah sends at the head of every one hundred years, as is authentically reported from him صلى الله عليه وسلم. So just as that [i.e., the emergence of a reviver at the head of every one hundred years] does not necessitate the abandonment of striving to seek knowledge and acting upon it to revive the religion, then likewise, the emergence of the Mahdi does not mean relying totally on him [tawaakul] without making preparations and without taking steps to establish Allaah’s rule on earth.

Rather the opposite of that is correct. For indeed the Mahdi’s efforts will not be greater than those of our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم who spent twenty-three years working to establish the foundations of Islaam and its state–so what can the Mahdi possible do if he emerged today and found the Muslims split into sects and groups, and [found] their [bad] scholars, except for a few of [the good ones among] them, to have been taken as heads by the people! He would not be able to establish the nation state of Islaam except after uniting their word and uniting their ranks, under one banner, and this without doubt requires a long time which Allaah knows best as to just how long.

So both the Legislation and the intellect demand that the sincere Muslims carry out this obligation such that when the Mahdi does come, he will not be required except to lead them to victory and if he doesn’t come [in their time, then at the very least] they will have fulfilled what was obligatory upon them, and Allaah says, “And say, ‘Do [as you will], for Allaah will see your deeds, and [so will] His Messenger …’”” [Tawbah 9:105]

As-Saheehah, 4/42-43.

Leave a comment
February 1, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb | 15 | The Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon Are not Upon the Manhaj of the Salaf


Following on from the previous post.

“Thus, they do not take as methodology the adoption of Islaam as a whole, instead they invite those around them to a general call, and upon a principle which, it is apparent to me, summarises their call as being one centred upon: gathering the people together, then teaching them one time–and then no more.

For they call the people [in accordance to one of the sayings] said in some Levantine countries, ‘Whoever follows a religion, may God aid him in that,’ [i.e., each to his own; let a person be and follow what he wants whatever that may be].

And an incorrect understanding may be coupled with this which is based upon a hadith that has no basis which is, as you know, ‘The differing of my Ummah is a mercy,’ and upon this they founded a statement of theirs which has no basis, i.e., ‘Whoever blindly follows a scholar will meet Allaah safe and sound.’

So, most regretfully, we find some of their prominent heads and those who have some fiqh which they call comparative jurisprudence [fiqhul-muqaarin]–but when comparative jurisprudence is not coupled with choosing the stronger opinion after careful research and consideration [tarjeeh] which is in accordance with the Book and the authentic Sunnah, then rigid ‘madhhabism’ is better than it–[so] we find that some of these people who have studied comparative fiqh take, from every madhhab, that which they think will make things easy for the people and bring them closer to the deen and will not turn them away from it even if it means declaring something which Allaah has forbidden to be permissible.

So we find, for example, that some of them declare musical instruments to be permissible and do not hold them to be forbidden even though there are authentic hadiths regarding that as you know. Thereafter they cause the people to doubt the authenticity of these hadiths even though they are authentic.

And he adds another doubt he invented to that, and it is in opposition to what all of the four Imaams and their followers are upon, and it is the saying of one of them regarding musical instruments and their prohibition that, ‘No text unequivocal in its prohibition [of them] exists,’ he says, ‘unequivocal,’ ‘No text unequivocal in its prohibition exists,’–[he says this] while he knows that in the eyes of all the scholars of the Muslims, it is not a condition for sharee’ah rulings that an ‘unequivocal’ text be present concerning it, rather, these fuqahaa, especially those who came later, distinguish between texts in their usool, saying [incorrectly], ‘A text may be unequivocally established [i.e., there being no doubt regarding its authenticity] but not unequivocal in the point being proven/derived from it; and [conversely] it may be unequivocal in the point being proven/derived from it, but not unequivocally established [as an authentic text].’

So concerning sharee’ah rulings they suffice themselves with the fact that the proof should be presumptively established, even presumptive in the point it is proving, and what they mean by ‘presumptive’, as will not be hidden from those present inshaa Allaah, is predominant possibility.

So we find him making it a condition in some of the rulings of the sharee’ah which he declared to be permissible, despite the presence of some authentic hadiths regarding them [being forbidden, we find that] he negates their meaning because they are not, ‘unequivocally established,’ and not, ‘unequivocal in their denotation/meaning.’

An example of that is the hadith which Bukhaari reported as is known, “From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And (from them) there will be some who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, ‘Return to us tomorrow.’ Allaah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection.” [Bukhaari, no. 5590]

So he says that this hadith is not ‘unequivocally established’, and he mentions a doubt which he quotes from Ibn Hazm, may Allaah have mercy on him, where Ibn Hazm said that between Imaam Bukhaari and his shaikh Hishaam ibn Ammaar the chain in this hadith is disconnected–but there is no disconnection in it at all as is mentioned in other places.

And one of the reference books which I advise be referred to for the correct refutation of Ibn Hazm in this claim and others regarding this hadith is Fathul-Baari of Shaikh Ahmad ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani, may Allaah have mercy on him, for he has answered this doubt comprehensively.

There is no doubt that the person we alluded to [i.e., the one who used Ibn Hazm’s quote] has come across al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr’s statements and his refutation of Ibn Hazm, in fact, he has come across the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and many of the scholars of hadith who were perfectly sure of the authenticity of this hadith.

So he doubts the point being proven/the meaning in the hadith and [he also doubts] its being established, saying, ‘In terms of its being established [as a sound narration], there is the doubt of it being disconnected.’ And he says, [concerning his doubt about] the point/meaning [being conveyed in it], ‘The hadith forbids all of these things when done together, not musical instruments on their own.’

There is another place to discuss this topic and its details, I just wanted to say that the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon, even though their da’wah is more beneficial to the youth to a certain extent, do not traverse the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih in their call–this is how Hasan al-Banna demarcated it for them, may Allaah have mercy on him and forgive him.

And Sayyid Qutb followed that same way, but I believe that at the end of his life in prison, a very big transformation towards some of the Salafi Usool became apparent from Sayyid Qutb, even though in his old books there are many mistakes in terms of knowledge whether those connected to aqidah or ahkaam. But I say: in prison, it became apparent from him that he wasn’t calling to this gathering of people and this factionalism [tahazzub] which is not based upon purification and cultivation. And these statements of his are recorded in his well-known book, ‘Why Did They Execute Me?’ So I advise the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon to read this piece from this man to whom it became apparent that the plan which they are still working according to, will not bring to fruition what they are aiming for, i.e., establishing the rule of Islaam or the realisation of an Islamic country.

Because that requires beneficial knowledge and righteous action, and beneficial knowledge is not acquired except by studying it and doing so upon the methodology which we just mentioned, i.e., returning to the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with them.

And in ending I say:

“All good is in following the Salaf, and all evil is in the innovations of those who came later [khalaf].”

And maybe you will allow me to stop now for the time you allotted has ended, may Allaah reward you all with good, and convey my salaam to those who hear me and to whoever this reaches, inshaa Allaah.

Questioner: Wa alaikum salaam wa rahmatullaah. In conclusion …

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: We thank your eminence, and all of the youth are eagerly giving you salaam.

Al-Albaani: Wa alaihimus salaam wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu.

Questioner: And all of them were listening intently to you, and we thank Allaah for the presence of your eminence, from whose knowledge, intellect and wisdom we seek light. And we ask Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, to bless your life and to benefit Islaam and the Muslims through you.

Al-Albaani addressing the Questioner who is Shaikh al-Ubailaan: May Allaah bless you, O Shaikh Abdullaah [ibn Saalih al-Ubailaan, [here is his website]], and goodness and blessing is in you, I advise the brothers who are present with you to regard this as an opportunity to take beneficial knowledge from you, inshaa Allaah, and in you there is an abundance [of knowledge for them] and sufficiency, inshaa Allaah.

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Was-Salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu.”

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 805.

2 Comments
January 28, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb | 14 |


 

Questioner: May Allaah bless you, we want the legislated, balanced evaluation of some of the Islamic callers of the past about whom much has been said, like Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, because opinions have clashed concerning them with some people saying that Shaikh Naasir [i.e., al-Albaani] says such and such, and others say that Shaikh Naasir says such and such.  We want the legislated, scholarly, evaluation which your eminence holds to be true concerning Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb?

Al-Albaani: Yes.  Based upon His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, “… and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness …” [Maa’idah 5:8] [I say that] we do not withhold a caller his due, and what we believe about him is done so without falling short or going to extremes.

I believe that Hasan al-Banna had a good influence on many of the Muslim youth who were lost in [different forms of] amusement and Western habits like places of entertainment and cinemas.  He banded them together–and it was a hizbi bloc that they formed which we are not happy with because … [tape is unclear here] …– but he called them to follow the Book and the Sunnah and to cling to the Islaam that he knew, so through him Allaah caused there to be as much benefit as He wanted and his call spread to the Islamic lands.  This is what we hold to be true before Allaah regarding his call.

But we do not go to extremes regarding him as those who are partisan to him do–for he, regretfully, did not have knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah and was not a caller to the Book and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.

And we just said [in previous sittings] that no group or faction on the face of the earth will be found which denies clinging to the Book and the Sunnah. In fact, every group no matter how misguided they are like, for example, the Shee’ah and the Khawaarij, say, ‘We are on the Book and the Sunnah,’ let alone Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb and those who followed them, these too call to holding firmly to the Book and the Sunnah.

But, most unfortunately, to this day the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon do not openly proclaim that they cling to the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih but instead suffice with calling to Islaam, to the Book and the Sunnah, generally.

For this reason, we know through experience that the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon tread on the path of Hasan al-Banna in calling to Islaam, and even if it is connected to the Book and the Sunnah their call is general and does not include detail even in that which is related to aqidah.

So they do not openly declare clinging to the aqidah of the Salaf as-Saalih in detail, they may say it generally, but what we see actually taking place in many countries in which the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon party has spread is that they are satisfied with everyone who holds onto Islaam in whatever shape or form that may be, so the Ikhwaan gather between the Salafis and the Khalafis, i.e., between those who align themselves to the Salaf and those who align themselves to the Khalaf, indeed they will gather and add people who may be Shee’ah to their ranks.

And I know through personal experience that the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon, because their da’wah is general and not detailed and is not on the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih, [because of this] you will find that the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon in one country differ from the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon in another even though they are both Ikhwaanees, but their fiqh and their aqidah differs greatly.

So I’ll give you a very sensitive and precise example: unquestionably it is Sayyid Saabiq’s book called Fiqhus-Sunnah.  In reality, I advise the Muslim youth to read it, those who have not studied the fiqh which is followed in one of the four madhhabs, as is the case with most of the youth today–they do not study fiqh.  Because they go through formal education which only teaches very, very little fiqh.

When they want to learn fiqh, I advise these youth to learn it from Sayyid Saabiq’s book [called], ‘Fiqhus-Sunnah.’  For it, in reality, opened a door for the rigid blind-followers who do not know Islaam except within the limits of their madhhabs which they studied and lived according to or which they found their fathers and forefathers on–it opened a way for them to stick to fiqh issues which have been authentically reported in the Sunnah. I advise the youth to read this book, even though I had some points to make about it, and this is something natural, for this reason I wrote a book called, Tamaam al-Minnah fit-Ta’liq alaa Fiqhis-Sunnah, [which is a four hundred and seventy three page checking of Sayyid Saabiq’s book].

I say: in some institutions in the Islamic countries this book is studied because it is easy to grasp and understand and because it is not fanatical towards any one of the four madhhabs followed today–whilst in other countries, it is thrown to the side just as a [worthless] seed is by a group of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon [themselves] even though the book’s author is from the heads of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon and from the students of Hasan al-Banna, may Allaah the Blessed and Most High, have mercy on him.

3 Comments
January 27, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 13 | Salafiyyah is not a Mere Claim


 

Questioner: In some Arab countries a group has emerged which claims that they are followers of Sayyid Qutb and that they are the true Salafis, what is your opinion?

Al-Albaani: My opinion is that the problem is the same, and my answer is that groundless claims are invalid. We believe that Sayyid Qutb, may Allaah have mercy on him, was not Salafi in his methodology for the majority of his life. But near its end, when he was in prison, a strong inclination to the Salafi methodology became apparent from him.

Salafiyyah is not a mere claim, salafiyyah requires acquaintance with the Book and the authentic Sunnah and the Salafi narrations.

We know that these people and their likes, who claim that their da’wah is based on the Book and the Sunnah, do not know the principles of understanding the Book, principles which are well-known from the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah in his trestise on Usoolul-Fiqh, and the statements of the Imaams of tafseer like Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir and others: that the Quraan is interpreted with the Quraan, and if not then with the hadiths, and if not then with the sayings of the Companions and those after them from the Pious Predecessors.

So those who [merely] claim Salafiyyah do not tread this path in explaining the Quraan, this scholarly path, which the scholars of the Muslims have agreed upon.

Questioner: This is present among the Qutubis.

Al-Albaani: Of course, it is present. And that is why in Sayyid Qutb’s tafsir you will find some explanations which adopt the approach of those who came later who oppose the Pious Predecessors.

Thereafter I want to say that these people are not concerned about distinguishing between the authentic Sunnah and the weak, let alone the fact that they are not concerned about scrutinising the narrations of the Companion and the Pious Predecessors, [which is important] because it is these narrations which help a scholar to understand the Book and the Sunnah as we just alluded to.

From where will Salafiyyah come to them if they are far away from understanding the first foundation of Islaam, i.e., the Quraan, and far away from correct, scholarly principles, and far away from distinguishing between authentic and weak hadiths, and even more distant in examining the narrations of the Pious Predecessors, such that they can be guided through their guidance and seek light from theirs?

Thus, the issue is not to merely claim. And why do these people claim that they are Salafis? The answer is as I have mentioned in some of my previous answers: that now the Salafi call, through Allaah’s Grace, has almost covered the Islamic sphere, and it has become apparent to most of those who used to oppose it, even if only generally, that this call is that of the truth, for this reason they associate themselves to it, even though in their actions they are ever so far removed from it.

Al-Huda wan-Noor, 188.

1 Comment
January 27, 2012

Al-Albaani Destroys, “If You’re Not With Us, You’re Against Us.”


Here’s the PDF: IfYou’reNotWithUSYou’re AgainstUs.

Questioner: There are principles, O Shaikh, which some of the youth act upon, from these rules is, ‘Whoever does not declare a disbeliever to be a disbeliever then he is a disbeliever.  Whoever does not declare an innovator to be an innovator then he is an innovator,’ and another rule, ‘Whoever is not with us, then he is against us.’

What is your opinion about these rules, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: And where have these rules come from?! And who laid them down?!

This reminds me of a joke that is told in my motherland, Albania, my father, may Allaah have mercy on him, related it in a sitting. In the story he said that a scholar visited a friend of his at his house and then when he left he declared his friend to be a disbeliever.

He was asked why …

In our country we have a custom, and I think it is [something] uniform in the countries of non-Arabs, they glorify and respect, and revere the scholars with some customs and habits which differ from country to country. From these is that when a scholar enters a house, visiting someone, upon leaving his shoes are supposed to be turned around so that the scholar will not have to burden himself by turning around—he should just find the shoes are ready for him to slide his feet into.

So when this scholar visited his friend and then went to leave he found that his shoes were just as he had left them, i.e., the host had not respected the Shaikh and had just left them as they were.

So ‘the scholar’ said that this is disbelief.

Why? Because the host had not respected the scholar, and the one who has not respected a scholar has not respected knowledge, and the one who does not respect knowledge does not respect the one who brought the knowledge—and the one who brought the knowledge is Muhammad عليه السلام and he carried on in this way until he got to Jibreel and then the Lord of the Worlds, and thus the host is a kaafir.

This question [of yours], this rule [you mentioned], reminded me of this fable!

It is not a condition at all that someone who has declared a person to be a disbeliever or has established the proof against someone, that [as a result of that] all of the people have to be with him in that judgement of takfir, because he [i.e., the person’s situation] may be open to interpretation and [thus] another scholar may hold that it is not permissible to declare that individual to be a disbeliever, and the same goes for declaring someone to be a faasiq or an innovator.

This reality is from the trials of the present day, and from the hastiness of some youth who falsely claim knowledge. So the point is that this chain [of deduction] or making this binding is not incumbent at all.

This is an open/expansive issue, one scholar may hold something to be obligatory and the other may hold that it is not. And the scholars of before and those who came later never differed except due to the fact that the door of ijtihaad does not make it incumbent on others to take his opinion, ‘that others have to take his opinion.’ It is only the blind-follower [muqallid] who has no knowledge who has to blindly-follow [yuqallid].

The scholar, who sees another declare an individual to be a disbeliever, or a faasiq or an innovator, but does not agree with his opinion—it is not incumbent upon him at all to follow that [other] scholar.

And this is a calamity which, inshaa Allaah, has not spread from your country to others?

Questioner: By Allaah, O Shaikh, it is present in our country, the issue of declaring people to be innovators and declaring them to be disbelievers.

Al-Albaani: As for the Jamaa’atut-Takfeer then it is well-known that it is a group that started in Egypt and their fitnah was here in Ammaan before I settled here, i.e., about fourteen years ago. But Allaah the Mighty and Majestic guided them and they became upright on the Sunnah with us. Likewise some of them came to Damascus before I came here, and they tried to spread the fitnah of declaring other people to be disbelievers there, but again, our Lord did not give them success and they returned empty-handed. As for this misguidance, it is still present in Egypt and I fear that some of it may have reached the students of knowledge, and Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.

3 Comments
January 27, 2012

Continuing from the Same Tape | 12 | True Mujtahid Scholars who Fall into Innovations Unintentionally are Rewarded


The Meccan Man: If you allow us, as a completion of this discussion [to discuss the following example], some of the people of knowledge whose usool are correct [may] see that a certain issue is an innovation because the basis whih the ruling [he made] is dependent on is reliable in his opinion, and another scholar does not see it as such because the basis for his ruling is reliable in his opinion [too], [this could be] because of the difference [that occurs between them] in declaring a hadith to be authentic or weak or for reasons other than that, so is it possible for us to term this as, ‘interpretative innovation [bid’ah ijtihaadiyyah]?’

Al-Albaani: I previously mentioned that if a man from the people of knowledge and ijtihaad [namely, someone who comes to an Islamic ruling through his interpretation of the texts] falls into an innovation then he is not blamed due to that, just like if he were to declare something haraam to be halaal–and this is something which is even more important than innovations: maybe a scholar will declare something that Allaah has forbidden to be permissible but through ijtihaad and without intending to [make something haraam, halaal].  So do we now say that what he says is halaal is [in fact] halaal because the ruling came from a mujtahid who is qualified to make ijtihaad?  We say no, the haraam  is haraam, and the halaal is halaal–but this mujtahid scholar … and he is not rebuked for having made a mistake for he is rewarded whatever the case … but [at the same time] this does not mean that we declare his ruling to be correct while in reality it is a total mistake.

And maybe it is more pertinent for me to say that when a mujtahid scholar falls into an innovation and in doing so opposes the Sunnah without intending to, I say that he has [indeed] fallen into an innovation but that he is rewarded for what has emanated from him, because it was based upon ijtihaad.

The Meccan Man: Maybe we can say, based upon what you just stated, that there are three conditions, in fact one condition, but maybe for elaboration [we can say that]: he has to be from the people of knowledge, and from those capable of doing ijtihaad, or that he has correct usool …

 Al-Albaani: … but is not from the people of knowledge …

The Meccan Man: … or that the basis for his rulings is correct, likewise he will not be from the people of knowledge unless the basis for his rulings is correct.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 785.

Leave a comment
January 25, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 11 | Primary and Secondary Innovations


Al-Albaani referring to the previous interjector’s mention of Imaam ash-Shaatibi’s name says …

Al-Albaani: You reminded me of a statement of ash-Shaatibi, [he had a term], ‘… additional/secondary innovations [al-bidah al-idaafiyyah].’

From this man’s knowledge and understanding of Islaam is that he came up with a precise, scholarly categorisation of innovations, i.e., innovations which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم would universally declare to be misguidance in his khutbahs by saying, ‘… and every innovation is misguidance, and all misguidance is in the Fire.’

He divided innovations into real/primary innovations [al-bid’ah al-haqiqa] and additional/secondary innovations [bid’ah idaafiyyah], and he explained what was intended by both.

So he said, obviously in meaning [and not word for word], that primary innovations are those which openly oppose the Book and the Sunnah or either one of them. He gives some examples of that like the false aqidah of the Jabariyyah for example, and [also the false aqidah] of i’tizaal and khurooj, which have no basis at all in the Book and the Sunnah in any way whatsoever, these are real/primary innovations.

Additional/secondary innovations are those which if looked at from one angle are found to be legislated, and when you look at them from another you will see that they are not. It is in this way that additional/secondary innovations differ from real/primary ones.

I will explain this partially, but [before that] we must stop [to note a point] here: [when someone] goes against what has been prohibited in the Sharee’ah it is not called an innovation but a sin. Many people call cinemas or the new places of entertainment that are found nowadays, which contain lewdness and sins, innovations. It is not allowed to call these places innovations, these are rather forbidden sins, [the only way we can call them innovations is if we stretch it and] go far away from [talking about] innovations in the sharee’ah and said that linguistically these cinemas were not present–but [normally] a person who says that such places/things are misguided innovations does not mean [this linguistic meaning when he says that, and thus should not call them innovations].

[Going back to the categorisation of innovations] all innovations in the religion are blameworthy and they are of the two types just mentioned: either real/primary innovations which have no basis in the Book or the Sunnah, but which [rather] oppose the Book and the Sunnah–like those examples mentioned earlier [of the Jabariyyah etc.]–or secondary innovations which, as we said, if you look at them from one angle you will find them to be legislated but if looked at from another you will find that they are not … and most of the innovations present in the Islamic world today are of this type.

Ash-Shaatibi gives some very clear examples of this, like that of seeking forgiveness after prayer. Seeking forgiveness after prayer is established in Sahih Muslim, he صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم used to seek Allaah’s forgiveness when he would give salaam.  Ash-Shaatibi says that this is a sunnah–but [people] raising their voices together [whilst doing so] is an innovation. So by looking at the fact that this seeking of forgiveness has a basis [in Islaam], then it is a Sunnah, [but] by looking at the unlegislated method of doing it which has been added to this Sunnah, it has become an additional/secondary innovation, and thus it [i.e., the innovated way of doing it], has fallen under those hadith which warn against innovations.

Likewise, he gives another example in which he seeks to put right an issue which it seems was prevalent in his time and about which he relates his [own personal] account. [He said that] an Imaam was appointed in a mosque [where he prayed] and the people had become accustomed to the Imaam turning to face them after he had given salaam and then he would prompt/get them to repeat the words of remembrance and would then raise his hands and supplicate while they would say aameen. Ash-Shaatibi said, ‘So I was perplexed at this predicament, should I … [tape recording unclear here, the word could be ‘follow’] … the people and oppose the Sunnah? Or follow the Sunnah even if the people become hostile towards me?’ And that is what he did, and indeed the arrows of criticism and disparagement and slander were shot at him from every angle.

So he was saying that supplicating after giving salaam does have a basis in the legislation but doing so in this fashion, in unison, making it lengthy and expansive and in unison–these are additions that have been added to the basis of supplication and it has thus become an innovation, something unlegislated.

Like I said, the innovation which is prevalent amongst the Muslims today and is the easiest thing for them, the one they call, ‘A good innovation [al-bid’ah al-hasanah].’ What is their proof? They looked at the [action’s] foundation … [so] for example, adding [the sending of salutations on the Prophet] at the beginning or the end of the call to prayer, they will say, ‘My brother, sending salutations upon the Prophet … the Prophet said that whoever sends prayers upon me once, Allaah will send prayers upon him ten times [so that’s why we add it to the adhaan] …’

But they are ignorant of the fact that these additions have been added to this legislated action and have thus made it misguidance and an innovation and it is not permissible to seek closeness to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, through it.

This is what ash-Shaatibi, may Allaah have mercy on him, meant by additional/secondary innovations.

Leave a comment
January 15, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 10 | “Relieve me of him!”


The Yemeni Youth: Okay, O Shaikh, there is an issue, a matter, which many of the youth fall into, especially those who go to Afghanistan, they say, for example, [if] you say to them that this person fell into a dangerous affair and you clarify [the matter] for them or [you tell them that] such and such a Shaikh spoke about this, he will say to you that that person/Shaikh has not been there and has not experienced the reality there, i.e., he has not been there. I say to him that Shaikh al-Albaani says such and such, [but] it is as though they assume that a person should be there, we said to them that people come to the Shaikhs and ask them questions and the Shaikhs give them answers, so some advice for these people, O Shaikh, because this understanding has become …

Al-Albaani Cutting Him Off and Addressing Those Around Him Concerning The Yemeni Youth: Relieve me of him! [i.e., ‘Get him off my back.’]

Interjector: I say, it was not fitting that I speak on behalf of the Shaikh but I advise our brother and all of the brothers … and I ask the brother [i.e., the Yemeni Youth] this question: how have you come to know the truth from falsehood? A mistake from that which is correct? Is it not through knowledge? Is it not through beautiful preaching?

So the best way for these people and you is that you lead them towards seeking knowledge through which Allaah the Mighty and Majestic will guide their steps. And such statements which you are requesting our noble Shaikh to make do not have the effect which knowledge, laying down principles and establishing foundations [of knowledge] have.

So you should explain the principle and establish the foundation that the truth is not connected to men, that the truth is not connected to place, that the truth is not connected to time.

As for those arguments and debates which go on between the brothers and Al-Albaani … [so and so] is good, not good, Sayyid Qutb is a kaafir, not a kaafir, and the same about so and so–there is no end to this whatsoever.

So the Shaikh’s statements … he will tell you to encourage them to seek knowledge, to call them with wisdom and beautiful preaching, not to create enmity between yourself and them.

If they were Jews, in the path of da’wah not jihaad … indeed, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic made it a condition upon us when calling the People of the Book [to Islaam] that it should be done with that which is best, “And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best …” [Ankabut 29:46] So what do you think the case is with your brothers, Muslims, but are those who have deviated, strayed, are mistaken and so on?

So the Shaikh’s answer is that you encourage them to seek knowledge and that you establish a brotherly, knowledge-based, connection between yourself and them so that they will become firm like you in recognizing the truth.  And all of you are doing well, and we are with you in calling to Allaah.

Al-Albaani: May Allaah accept your advice from you.

Interjector: Wa iyyaak.

But the Shaikh’s praise or his compliments, or the praise or compliments of any scholar … like the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah did concerning the Ash’aris indeed the Mu’tazilah … and if we praise al-Ma’moon for his jihaad and his conquering lands for the Muslims, [all of this] does not mean nor does it necessitate that we support their madhhabs, and at the same time it does not mean that criticizing, saying that so and so made a mistake in this issue and that issue, that we declare him to be misguided.

So these extremities, subhaanallaah, how the Muslims have been tried, as the Shaikh of Islaam said, ‘There is no statement except that it has two extremities and a middle way.’

Shouldn’t your disputes about a man be about seeking knowledge and be a scholarly discussion? Maybe Allaah, subhanahu wa ta’ala, will guide him.

And when the Shaikh encourages one to read the books of Zaid or Amr or Sayyid Qutb … he is only encouraging you to seek knowledge which is based upon the Book and Sunnah and the statements of the Salaf as-Saalih, and this encouragement is not … and I will enter this discussion myself [after the Shaikh’s permission and say], sometimes, like [earlier] a noble brother came to me and asked me the self-same questions [that you put to Shaikh al-Albaani] and with Allaah’s Bounty and His Decree what I said was the same as you [i.e., al-Albaani] before I knew what you said, and maybe it was the same almost word for word, and I directed this kind of advice to him: that he distance himself from such issues.

The point is when we say, or when the Shaikh, may Allaah reward him with good, says that these statements in [Qutb’s book] Milestones are good, it does not mean that he has equated Shaikh Qutb to Ibn Kathir, he makes clear that the man [i.e., Qutb] is not a scholar–this is a point we must grasp, and nor does it mean that when he makes one, two, three mistakes that we do not mention a single good deed of his as our Shaikh reminded us when he mentioned that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic praised the Christians in more than one place, “And among the People of the Scripture is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount [of wealth], he will return it to you.” [Aali-Imraan 3:75], so this is not unequivocal/to be taken absolutely.

And what is correct and the truth is that the brothers should not dedicate themselves to books which do not provide knowledge, [books] which they refer to as cultural/educational books, rather it is a must for them to go back to the books which lay down principles from the Book and the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and their explanations and the books of those scholars who laid down principles, scholars like the Shaikh of Islaam and his students and the books of Shaatibi and others.

Al-Albaani: You reminded me of …

2 Comments
January 14, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 9 | The Shaikh’s Praise of Specific Statements of Qutb Doesn’t Mean He Agreed With Everything Qutb Said and His Criticism of Him Doesn’t Mean He Called Him a Kaafir


The Yemeni Youth: But I think, and Allaah knows best, from that the people will understand … they will say …, I know what you are saying is true without doubt, [but] what will the people go and say, they will say that, “Shaikh al-Albaani … why do you say this is a mistake …” because some of them study this, they study the tafsir of Surah Ikhlaas from the tafsir of Sayyid Qutb, and they say, ‘Why do you say such and such? Shaikh Qutb is the best of those who spoke about the explanation of Laa ilaaha illallaah, I heard Shaikh al-Albaani say such and such …’ they say such things and make things unclear … maybe, I know [what you are saying] but the common folk, many of them, O Shaikh …

Al-Albaani: O Shaikh, fear Allaah regarding yourself.

The Speech of Allaah wasn’t saved from the likes of these things that you are relating from the people. What did Allaah say about the Jews and the Christians? “… and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ …” [Maa’idah 5:82]. What is found here? There is praise from Allaah for the Christians–are you able to say no?

He won’t answer.

Let him learn, my brother, give and take.

The Yemeni Youth: The end of the aayah, what is meant by the Christians are those who fear Allaah and who cried out of the fear of Allaah, those who believed, this is what I understand, maybe I am mistaken, but I’d like to ask.

Al-Albaani: The Christians concerning whom this aayah was revealed, were they monotheists on the way of Jesus, when between Jesus [and the coming of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم] there was a gap of five hundred years or more?

The Yemeni Youth: I don’t know, just, that which I see, that which I understand from the aayah … I don’t want to say …

Al-Albaani: Sorry, my brother, say what you have.

The Yemeni Youth: That He [i.e., Allaah] praised those among them who believed in the Final Message.

Al-Albaani: Correct. And the Jews?

The Yemeni Youth: “That is because among …” [Maa’idah 5:82], this is what I understand, and Allaah knows best.

Al-Albaani: Sorry, my brother, generally, are they the same? The Jews and the Christians, are they the same?

The Yemeni Youth: No, the Jews are further astray.

Al-Albaani: This is the point. So there is praise of the Christians generally, as for whether they believed, then it is not our topic [i.e., it is not what we are talking about now]. We, right up until now, believe that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, nurtured us upon [the fact that] and taught us that there is a difference between the Christians as Christians and the Jews as Jews, putting aside whether there was a group amongst them who submitted to Islaam or not. So it is not fitting that such aayahs are taken to support the fact that Allaah has praised the Christians and [then] we leave the clear Saying of Allaah, “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allaah is the third of three,’ …” [Maa’idah 5:73]

So don’t be concerned about the fact that they will take an aayah from the Quraan and misinterpret it so that it will be a proof for their misguidance [i.e., they will take Allaah’s praise of the Christians and based upon that say everything Christians say is good and they will leave Allaah’s criticism of them], let alone the fact that they [i.e., those who use Al-Albaani’s praise of some parts of Qutb’s books] will take what al-Albaani says or what those who are higher than al-Albaani and more knowledgeable than al-Albaani say to strengthen their deviance and misguidance.

Why are you, as they say in Syria, ‘He took hold of the ladder horizontally and walked off,’ [i.e., harming everyone on his way and knocking them over, a Syrian proverb talking about people who do not know how to handle issues properly], what concerns you about this group?

I once said regarding Sayyid Qutb … you’ve heard of Shaikh Abdullaah Azzaam, Abdullaah Azzaam, he used to be here, from the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon, and seven to eight years ago, the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon issued a resolution to boycott al-Albaani, and to boycott Abu Yusuf, and to boycott everyone who affiliated themselves to his [i.e., al-Albaani’s] da’wah, bearing in mind that Abdullaah Azzaam was the only man from the Ikhwaanis who would hardly have heard that Shaikh al-Albaani had a sitting at a house except that he would be from amongst the first of those present, and he would have a small notebook with him and a small pen, like this, really small, he would write his notes in it, this man who was truly tender hearted.

[But] when the Ikhwaanis issued their decision to boycott me he totally stopped visiting me. I met him in Suhaib Mosque, we were leaving after the prayer, naturally I gave him salaam, he replied to my salaam with shyness because he didn’t want to oppose the ‘decision.’

I said, ‘Why this, O Shaikh? Is this what Islaam ordered you with?’

He said, ‘Soon shall the clouds of summer clear up.’ [i.e., this situation will be over soon just as a summer cloud disappears without rain].

Days came and went, and [one day] he came to my house to see me but I wasn’t there. In summary, he followed after [my news] and came to know that Nidhaam [the Shaikh’s brother-in-law] was with me … he [i.e., Azzaam] knocked the door and came in, I welcomed him, he said, ‘I came to your house but didn’t find you there. And as you know, I’m keen to benefit from your knowledge …’ I said that that was how I knew him to be, but what is the meaning of this address? [i.e., these opening statements, what have you come to say?]’

He said, ‘You declared Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever.’

I said to him, ‘Where did I do that?’

He said, ‘You say that he acknowledged the belief of Wahdatul-Wujood in his explanation of the first part of Surah Hadeed, and secondly in [Surah] Qul Huwallaahu Ahad.’

I said, ‘Yes. He narrated statements of the Sufis and nothing can be understood from them except that he agrees with Wahdatul-Wujood. But from our principles, and you are from the most well-acquainted of people with them because you attend my gatherings, is that we do not declare a person to be a disbeliever even if he has fallen into disbelief except after the proof has been established against him. So how is it that you announced this boycott? And I am still here? [i.e.., you could have come to me to clarify things if they were unclear].’

… [when that other man came] to check to see whether it was true if I declare Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever, I said to him, ‘Sayyid Qutb says this [i.e., the saying of the extremist Sufis about Wahdatul-Wujood] in such and such Surah …’ [so] the other man opened it [i.e., Qutb’s book] up in another place [and showed the Shaikh a part where Qutb said something good and based upon that] said, ‘He is a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger and in tawheed!’

I said to him, ‘My brother, I do not deny this truth which he has said but I criticise this falsehood which he has stated.’

And despite this sitting we had, later he [i.e., Azzaam] went and published two or three consecutive pieces in the Al-Mujtama’ magazine in Kuwait with the title, ‘Shaikh al-Albaani declares Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever.’ It’s a very long story [but] the point to be had is: where do I say this and this?

So the one who holds that al-Albaani declared Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever is like the one who holds that Shaikh al-Albaani praised Sayyid Qutb in a place … [i.e., one group goes to extremes and takes Albaani’s praise of certain statements of Qutb’s to mean everything Qutb said was okay and the other takes Al-Albaani’s criticism of Qutb to mean that he declares Qutb to be a disbeliever] … these are people of desires and there is no way for us to stand in their way except that we pray to Allaah for them only, “Then, would you compel the people in order that they become believers?”[Yunus 10:99]

For this reason, I think [you should] put the fervour/passion you have into learning the Sunnah and calling to it and spreading it amongst the Ummah. And don’t put personal enmity between you and people, especially when they have gone ahead to the actions they have sent forth, whether good or bad [i.e., they have passed away].

The Yemeni Youth: Jazaakallaahu khair.

Al-Albaani: Wa iyyaak, in shaa Allaah.

The Yemeni Youth: O Shaikh, by the way, Abdullaah Azzaam, I read a book of his, it’s called, Al-Imlaaq Sayyid Qutb, he refuted you in it, a booklet, I read it and it seems like it’s distributed in Peshawar.

Al-Albaani: I said to you, my brother, he refuted me in the Al-Mujtama [magazine], and unfortunately in that he was an oppressor.  I didn’t want to relate the rest of the story to you because it had no connection to our discussion but now you are compelling me to complete it.

So days came and went and someone … from … what’s his name … Abu … their older brother … I used to visit them for a number of years … he said that he wanted me to attend an iftaar gathering in Ramadaan [as far as I recall], I don’t remember exactly, the point is he had invited Shaikh Abdullaah Azzaam who had come from Afghanistan.

I told him I would come under a condition. He asked what it was and I said, ‘The man [i.e., Abdulaah Azzaam] did such and such to me … and refuted me after we had sat in my brother-in-law, Nidhaam’s, house, and I made him [i.e., Azzaam] understand that I do not declare Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever but that I do make clear that what he said was disbelief.  [Yet after that] he went and printed two or three articles in the Al-Mujtama’ magazine.  So now I make it a condition upon you that you organise a private sitting for me with him so that I can call him to account over what he did.’ He replied, ‘It will be so.’

And I did sit with him [i.e., Azzaam] and said, ‘What is this? When you know my opinion, which is that I do not declare Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever? How did you go and write two articles in the Al-Mujtama’ magazine, with such a heavy title?’

He said, ‘Wallaahi, I went to Makkah for Umrah and the youth gathered around me and said that Shaikh al-Albaani declares Sayyid Qutb to be a disbeliever …’

I said, ‘Namely, you move according to the emotions of the youth? You are supposed to use your intellect and knowledge …’ and so on.

The point is that I carried on with him until I took a pledge from him that he would correct what he had written about me in the same magazine, the Al-Mujtama’ magazine, but he didn’t do it–may Allaah have mercy on him.

My point is, don’t busy yourself with the people, with individuals–this is a path which has no end, this is a path which has no end/a door which will not close.

The Yemeni Youth: Okay, O Shaikh, there is an issue …

2 Comments
January 12, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 8 | Young Minds Busy with the Wrong Stuff


Al-Albaani: I say that there is a very precious chapter in this book [i.e., ‘Milestones,’ of Sayyid Qutb], I believe its title is, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah – A Way of Life,’ this is what I say.

And just now I said: the man was not a scholar, but he has statements which have light on them, which have knowledge coming from them, like [the ones made in the chapter, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah] A Way of Life.’

I believe that many of our Salafi brothers have not adopted the meaning of this chapter’s title, that Laa ilaaha illallaah is a way of life …

The Meccan Man: And you said these statements to us personally in a house twenty five years ago.

Al-Albaani: Possibly, I don’t remember now what I said [then], but the man [i.e., Qutb] has a book called Social Justice in Islaam which has no value. But Milestones has some topics that are extremely valuable.

The Yemeni Youth: I passed by Shaikh Rabee [ibn Haadi al-Madkhali] and he gave me two books to give to you …

Al-Albaani: Two hand-written books or printed?

The Yemeni Youth: No, printed. And also another book which he wanted to be read to you called, ‘Hakadhaa Allamal-Anbiyaa,’ and the two other books are about Sayyid Qutb’s works. One of them is called, ‘Sayyid Qutb’s Slander of The Companions of the Messenger of Allaah,’ and in it he [i.e., Shaikh Rabee] relied on the sixth print from the year 1964ce before Sayyid Qutb died by two years.

Al-Albaani: May Allaah guide him. May Allaah guide him. My brother, what is the benefit of this book?

The Yemeni Youth: He wants you to take a look at them and the book, ‘Aqaa’iduhu Wa Fikruhu,’ and these two books have been printed. This meeting came quickly and the books were in my house so I couldn’t … the brothers came to me in the mosque and told me there was a meeting now with the Shaikh [i.e., al-Albaani] … so the books are at home but I gave a copy of each one to Shaikh Ali Hasan, O Shaikh, he [i.e., Shaikh Rabee] means to show the many aqidah mistakes which are in them.

And likewise, ya’ni, he wants you to … the point is he is warning the people from this, especially because when he [i.e., Qutb] explains Laa ilaaha illallaah, he says that the polytheists didn’t dispute with Laa ilaaha illallaah and that the Messages [of the Prophets] only came to tackle the issue of Rububiyyah and not Uluhiyyah, especially this [final] message [i.e., Islaam]. Some people say that he was the best who spoke about it … he holds that Laa ilaaha illallaah, tawheed al-Uluhiyyah, that the polytheists were in agreement over it, that the issue was only in tawhid ar-Rububiyyah, and he repeated this many times.

Al-Albaani: … you read this yourself?

The Yemeni Youth: Yes, I read it, but I didn’t read it in his book Zilaal, I read it in the book of Shaikh Rabee where he quoted him, about four times he said such things in different phrases, maybe I … I wrote some of his expressions down [and can read them to you] … he said, ‘So the issue of Uluhiyyah was not the area of dispute but rather the issue of Rububiyyah is the one which the Messages [of the Prophets] confronted, and it is the one which the final message confronted …’ and so on … Shaikh Abdullaah Al-Duwaish also rebutted him regarding his statement that if an Islamic government was established it has the right to pass laws to regulate life … [like] laws to take wealth from the people since it is the property of the community, i.e., it has statements like this of the communists.

The point is, O Shaikh, that there are many things, the most important of them is his statement about Musaa [عليه السلام] when he said [about him], ‘The irascible youth,’ … and many such statements … and he also interpreted Allaah’s Attribute of Speech to mean His Intent, that it refers to intent, also regarding the Quraan he said that it was from Allaah’s workmanship, for example, when Allaah, the One free of all defects and the Most High, said in Surah Saad … he [i.e., Qutb] said that this is truly from Allaah’s workmanship [i.e., this could be taken to mean he is saying the Quraan is created] and in Surah Aali-Imraan, “So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers.” [Aali-Imraan 3:139] he said … as far as I recall, traverse the methodology which …

Al-Albaani: And you, why do you fatigue and tire your memory trying to memorise these texts which are not from Prophetic speech?

The Yemeni Youth: No, O Shaikh …

Al-Albaani: Why? Why? Don’t say, ‘No.’

The Yemeni Youth: Just so, I read this just now and because I want to put this to you so I tried to …

Al-Albaani: Why do you want to put it to me?

The Yemeni Youth: Firstly, so that the people can be wary of these books, wallaahi, if one says something about them … they regard them to be the books of an Imaam and mujaddid.

Al-Albaani: I will ask you a question. These people who hold these books to be authoritative sources of knowledge, are they Salafis?

The Yemeni Youth: Wallaahi …

Al-Albaani: Yes, you intend not to answer any question.

The Yemeni Youth: They, O Shaikh … some of them are not Salafis like the Ikhwaan and so on, and some of them are from other groups, and some of them are those who say they are Salafi or to be more precise are those who say we are from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah but they do not say they are Salafi, they say we are from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.

The Meccan Man: You haven’t answered the Shaikh’s question.

Al-Albaani: There’s no point.

The Yemeni Youth: When we say to them … even when you speak about an issue, O Shaikh …

Al-Albaani: If Abu Talhah [i.e., the Yemeni Youth] can’t come to an understanding with a Salafi like him [i.e., Shaikh al-Albaani], then how will he come to an understanding with others. Tell me, let’s see.

The Yemeni Youth: O Shaikh, if I say they are Salafis …

Al-Albaani: Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illa billaah. I asked you if they are Salafis or not? And now I’m telling you that if you are not able to come to an understanding with me, then how will you be able to come to an understanding with others who are opponents of the da’wah? How?

The Yemeni Youth: We benefit and learn from you.

Al-Albaani: And how does learning take place?

The Yemeni Youth: By paying attention …

Al-Albaani: Thus, when a question is directed at you, focus your mind and think about the way to answer it if you have an answer. It is not necessary that you do answer [if you don’t have an answer, but] if you have one say, ‘I think such and such …’ and thus there will be some give and take, there will be benefit. As for us implementing the saying of the poet, ‘She went East and I went West,’ what a great difference there is between east and west.

I advise you not to busy your young mind with memorising that which will of a certainty not benefit you and which may harm you, [it may not harm you] for a certainty, but it may [nevertheless] harm you.

Don’t memorise the statements of so and so, and so and so, and so and so, and so and so, [people who] you think are more than likely not on the Straight Path with us—because you have not been commissioned to refute everyone who makes a mistake.

What do you think about what I just said?

The Yemeni Youth: It is good, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: [Do you have] any points to make about it?

The Yemeni Youth: It is good, only, the point … if it were to warn for example?

Al-Albaani: You’re warning us now?

The Yemeni Youth: No, the people for example.

Al-Albaani: I’m asking you, are you now warning us? Why, then?

The Yemeni Youth: To clarify.

Al-Albaani: To clarify, why?

The Yemeni Youth: Just a short while ago you mentioned a phrase …

Al-Albaani: He’s digressed, he’s digressed. I say to you, ‘Why?’ Namely, you want to warn, who are you warning?

The Yemeni Youth: Ya’ni, O Shaikh, I heard you say regarding the issue of Laa ilaaha illallaah that he said yes, that life … [i.e., that you praised the title to his book and people may take this to mean you are praising him so we have to warn …’

Al-Albaani: Yes, by Allaah, what do you think about this title?  That which you heard from me, what are your comments on it, in relation to your statement?

The Yemeni Youth: But I think, and Allaah knows best, the people will …

1 Comment
January 11, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb | 7


Questioner: There is an issue here: sometimes in the issue of creed and other than it, when we say, ‘Methodology, aqidah, sharee’ah,’–like some of the aayahs in the Quraan or earlier scholars when they said, ‘Issues of worship, aqidah, dealings,’ [they used such] terminology to teach and educate–without separating between them and the religion as a whole. [Ed. Note: i.e., he is saying that Hizb at-Tahrir, are mistaken because they believe that aqidah is something and fiqh is something else which has no connection to aqidah, whereas the correct stance is that any legislative fiqh ruling includes aqidah, the distinctions mentioned here, i.e., terms like: methodology, aqidah, fiqh, are to make teaching such concepts easier without meaning that they are not a part of aqidah].  Two other points are apparent to me here: that Hizb at-Tahrir and others, let alone the fact that they do not understand the religion or the Arabic language [which is proven when they say], ‘Affirmation without aqidah …’

Al-Albaani: This is in opposition to the Quraan …

The Meccan Man: And the second point related to terminology …

Someone Else: The Sunnah gives the lie to this belief of theirs, and it is the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, if my understanding is correct, ‘Eemaan has seventy-seven branches, the highest is Laa ilaaha illallaah, and the lowest is to remove something harmful from the street …’

The Yemeni Questioner: O Shaikh, maybe when the man [who was commenting on Qutb’s words] said that he [i.e., Qutb] wants to extend the scope of declaring people to be disbelievers, maybe by this he meant that Sayyid Qutb said about today’s Islamic Ummah that it is living in a state of Jaahiliyyah which [people in] the first Pre-Islamic Ignorance did not [even] live in, and he said that these mosques are the places of worship of ignorance, and that Islaam refuses to consider those societies as Islamic societies, I read this with my own eyes, O Shaikh!

Al-Albaani: Have you been to Egypt?

The Yemeni Questioner: No.

Al-Albaani: He’s an Egyptian.  He’s talking about what he witnesses in the mosques of Sayyidah Zainab, al-Badawi and so on.

The Yemeni Questioner: So all of the mosques in Egypt are like that?

Al-Albaani: No.  I’m not saying all of them are and nor is he, but he is talking generally.

The Yemeni Questioner: But he said this [situation] applies to whole communities, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: Whatever the case, the man has passed on to the Mercy of Allaah and His Bounty, and as I advised you just now, don’t seek out people, especially when they have passed on to the Mercy of Allaah.

Interjection: Is it possible for us to say here that if by Jaahiliyyah he meant to declare the people to be disbelievers, to declare this Ummah to be disbelievers, then this is manifest misguidance. And if by it he meant that you do not go down a street except that on your left is a bookmakers, another shop selling alcohol openly, the ninth place is a club, the fourth is a cinema, the fifth has women uncovered, the sixth sells apparel of the non-Muslims, a seventh thing is that unIslamic laws are passed … if this is what he meant [when he said], ‘Jaahiliyyah,’ then this is not rejected. Rather, Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab said words that were even stronger than this about the people. But if he intended to declare the people to be disbelievers then the situation is clear, alhamdulillaah. So we make a distinction, and the man himself does not concern us. So [like I said] if he intended to declare people to be outside the fold of Islaam then this is misguidance and we refuse it and his affair rests with Allaah, and if he intended the ignorance that we see then you will not doubt, along with me, that the situation is as such.

Al-Albaani addressing the Yemeni Youth: What are you called, Abu who?

The Yemeni Questioner: Abu Talhah.

Al-Albaani: Abu Talhah. Look, Abu Talhah. The Prophet عليه السلام, even though it was concerning something else, said, ‘Verily, the (results of] deeds done depend upon the last actions [one does].’

What is the final outcome of the discussion about whether Sayyid Qutb or someone else intended this or intended that?

The Yemeni Questioner: The point is that, O Shaikh, he mentioned …

Al-Albaani: Don’t digress from the answer. Don’t digress from the answer.

The Yemeni Questioner: I didn’t mean to digress, O Shaikh, I mean that this …

Al-Albaani: I’m not talking about whether you meant to or not. I’m just reminding you not to digress from the answer. Tell me, what is the fruit of the discussion that Sayyid Qutb or other than him said such and such and such. What is the purpose of us relating his statements?

The Yemeni Questioner: We want to warn the people, because the people have made his writings such that they have, in print and distribution, surpassed the works of the Imaams, so O Shaikh, he, namely, he has many mistakes in aqidah and spoke about Uthmaan …

Al-Albaani: This is the answer.

The Yemeni Questioner: No, I mean that because of this, O Shaikh …

Someone Else: We just have one question only.

Al-Albaani: Please go ahead.

Questioner: Did you ever say [Sayyid Qutb’s book called] Milestones is tawhid written in a modern style?

Al-Albaani: I say that …

Leave a comment
January 9, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb and a Mention of Hizb at-Tahrir | 6


The Meccan Man: Before maghrib prayer, it is fitting that we … and maybe in this, inshaa Allaah, there will be guidance for all … Sayyid Qutb says: that the belief in One God isn’t just a matter of faith limited to our conscience, it’s a complete way of life. The limits of creed/faith are much more encompassing than just “static belief”–it’s as if he is referring to the Murji’ah without even knowing it, those whose belief doesn’t extend beyond the limits of their hearts; that the limits of creed expand and spread until they include all aspects of life, and likewise in Islaam the issue of Haakimiyyah and its branches are [issues of] creed, just like manners generally are an issue of creed, for it is from creed that a methodology for life emanates which includes manners and values just as it includes social/cultural traditions and legislated matters alike.

Al-Albaani: Correct.

The Meccan Man: These statements are correct?

Al-Albaani: Yes.

The Meccan Man: Our brother commenting on these statements says that there is truth and confusion in them, as for [the statements that] creed is the basis for a way of life, then it is comprehensive and accepted.

Al-Albaani: Alhamdulillaah, okay.

The Meccan Man: and he [i.e., the brother whose comments on Qutb’s quotes the Meccan Man is reading out] acknowledged all his [i.e., Qutb’s] statements, but [said], ‘as for the statement that the limits of creed stretch and expand until they include all aspects of life then nothing from the Book or the Sunnah proves this and no scholars of Islaam have said this.’

Al-Albaani: This is a superficial man.

The Meccan Man: This [commentary on Sayyid Qutb’s words] is incorrect?

Al-Albaani: Yes. Is it possible for us to know who it is [who has made this commentary on Qutb’s statements]?

The Meccan Man: I’d prefer not to [mention his name], “… so these are the aberrant/bizarre statements of Sayyid Qutb so that he can expand the scope of declaring others to be disbelievers …” Don’t you see that this necessitates what’s not necessarily true? [i.e., isn’t it false to assume from these statements of Sayyid Qutb’s that he is expanding the scope of declaring people to be disbelievers?]

Al-Albaani: Yes, without doubt.

The Meccan Man: [Don’t you see that this necessitates what’s not necessarily true] concerning those who oppose his manhaj, he doesn’t declare others to be disbelievers … just because someone opposes his methodology Sayyid doesn’t declare him to be a disbeliever …

Al-Albaani: We do not know him to be like that. I believe the man was not a scholar.

The Meccan Man: No doubt, yes.

Al-Albaani: But he does have statements he made whilst in prison, which, in reality, are from inspiration [ilhaam].

The Meccan Man: Yet along with that he strays from mentioning grave-worship.

I’ve found some statements of Ibn al-Qayyim’s mentioned in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een which are exactly the same as those [of Sayyid Qutb]. He says that tawhid includes such and such and such and such and emanates from the heart to the limbs to other than that, it resembles these statements [of Qutb].

So the reality is that [the mistaken understanding they have] stems from the fact that they [incorrectly] interpret the statements of others even though their brothers in creed and minhaaj, especially those like you and like his eminence Shaikh Abdul-Aziz [Ibn Baaz] and others like him hold that this issue does not have the meaning given to it by those people.

Al-Albaani: This is correct.

Relating to this … when I would debate with Hizb at-Tahrir regarding their belief and misguidance that aqidah cannot be established through ahaad hadith, I would say to them that this statement of yours is a matter of creed, and in matters of creed you make it a condition that the proof must be unequivocal in its being established and in the point that it is proving, and [then] I would establish for them that they have not been upon any aqidah since the day their group was set up.

Because in this issue they went through three stages.

The first one was written in the first edition of a book of theirs, I don’t remember what its name is right now, but it had a chapter entitled, ‘The Path of Faith.’ In it they said that it was ‘not permissible’ to accept aahaad hadith in aqidah–just like that, ‘not permissible.’

Then the second edition of the book came out and they changed, ‘not permissible,’ to ‘not obligatory,’ they removed the word, ‘not permissible,’ and put, ‘not obligatory,’ in its place, so now it became permissible to use aahaad hadith in aqidah. Before they used to say it was not permissible, they changed that to not obligatory. ‘Not obligatory,’ i.e., you’re free to choose as you like, if you want you can take it, if not, leave it. Whereas before they had said it was not permissible. So this was the second stage of advancement.

The third stage, and I don’t know if they are still on it, was that they said, ‘You must accept aahaad hadith,’ i.e., endorse them but not believe them as aqidah. They played with words, ‘Affirm but not believe.’

And this is a discussion that occurred between me and some people from your country specifically where Al-Hasfah Prison brought us together. I found fifteen followers of Hizb at-Tahrir there who had one Aleppan leader over them, his name was Mustafaa Bakri. Do you know Mustafaa Bakri?

Those Present: No.

Al-Albaani: You don’t know him.

And al-Hamawi who was their main debater, was tall, stout, blond, having a good appearance but in no way daunting.

The point is I told him, ‘My brother, you get enthusiastic over the aqidah of Hizb [at-Tahrir] and you don’t even know it.’

He said, ‘How so?’

I said, ‘Don’t you believe that Hizb [at-Tahrir] previously used to hold that it is not permissible to take matters of aqidah from aahaad hadith?’

He said, ‘Yes. And that is our aqidah.’

I said, ‘No, they progressed beyond this and said, ‘It is not obligatory.’

He said, ‘Where?’

I said, ‘The second edition. And the last thing they said was that it is permissible, but only to affirm and not to [actually] have faith in it or to believe it as [a matter of] aqidah.’

Allaahu Akbar! They play with words so that their retraction will not become apparent to the members of their group. The point is that this was the introduction, and I had challenged them with issues which they had no way of answering.

I said to them, ‘Brothers …’–and here is the crux of the matter in relation to the statements [about the discussion of Sayyid Qutb] which we heard just now–‘Everything that has come in Islaam must be [related to] aqidah. When you perform an obligatory duty but divest it from aqidah, then you have done nothing [i.e., it is as though you have done nothing even though you may have physically performed an obligatory duty], when you distance yourself from something forbidden not because Allaah has forbidden it then you have not worshipped Allaah by distancing yourself from that thing …’ and so on and so on.

And from what I said was that, ‘If there was a distinction between aqidah and rulings, the opposite would have been closer to the truth–because every ruling includes aqidah, and so when such a ruling is stripped of any aqidah related to it, it becomes null and void–whereas not every [point of] aqidah includes action. So it is possible for you to believe [in something] and it is not necessary that you will have to perform any action in relation to that point of aqidah. For example, faith in the punishment of the grave,’ which is something they doubt and they say that it is not established because there is no proof unequivocal in its being established and unequivocal in proving it, and of course we are not now in the middle of refuting this claim of theirs, the point is that, ‘your belief of whether or not there is punishment in the grave, does not change anything in your progress in life or your actions,’ of course in the end there will be an effect, but I want to distinguish between legislated rulings … so every ruling includes aqidah–you say that this is haraam, i.e., you have believed that it is haraam, you say this is obligatory, i.e., you have believed that it is obligatory, and likewise are the five rulings as they say.

So Islaam, all of it, is aqidah, this is a reality. And thus aqidah must prepare the one who holds it to comply with it: if it is something related to just believing in something from the Unseen, he believes in [that thing of] the Unseen, if it is related to a legislated ruling then he acts upon it in light of the legislated ruling that it contains.

And I gave you an example … from that which I was tried with in Damascus was a debate I had with the Qaadiyanis, so from the beliefs of the misguided Qadiyaanis is that they believe that the two sunnah rak’ahs [prayed before] the morning prayer [fajr] are obligatory.

So I will take this as an example: after the call to prayer for fajr, two men get up and pray the two rak’ahs. One of them with the intention that he is praying [two] sunnah [rak’ahs] and this is correct, and the other is praying with the intention that they are obligatory, and this is incorrect. So the action is one, but the intention differs, one intention nullified the action of worship and the other intention made the action correct.

Thus, the pivot for all the rulings of Islaam is aqidah, so it is not permissible at all to separate aqidah from some parts of Islaam and to leave others. And this is a point of understanding which I wanted to make you aware of.

The Meccan Man: Here, for example, they …

Leave a comment
January 5, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb and his advice to the Youth | 5 | ‘Look for an excuse for your brother …’


 

The Previous Interjector: Our noble brother commented with the following on these statements [of Sayyid Qutb], which it seemed to me were the statements of Ibn al-Qayyim written in today’s style! He said: ‘… and in these statements there is, firstly, a slight on the call of the Messengers …’

Al-Albaani: No. Ibn al-Qayyim’s statements are like these [i.e., the Shaikh is saying that Ibn al-Qayyim has statements similar to the above statements of Qutb].

Interjector: ‘… [a slight on the call of the Messengers …] which focused on idol worship.’ Is there a slight in this?

Al-Albaani: [It’s] clear.

Interjector: I.e., no?

Al-Albaani: Of course.

Interjector: He said, ‘Secondly, it diverts the callers from the greatest and biggest forms of disbelief and shirk which all of the Messengers and Prophets and righteous people strove against, and they understood that it was the greatest danger facing mankind.’ Is there, in those statements, a diversion [of the callers from the greatest and biggest forms of disbelief and shirk as suggested by this brother]?

Al-Albaani: That is not found.

Interjector: Not found?

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: ‘Thirdly: in those statements there is confusion/a mix up between issues of major and minor shirk, and between the issue of sins, both major and minor.’

Al-Albaani: Where?

Interjector: Wallaahi, I don’t understand? But I will [try and] tell you where.

Al-Albaani: [Will you do so] with understanding or without?

Interjector: In shaa Allaah, with understanding. Some people hold that the issue of haakimiyyah and the rulers in general is minor shirk, and that grave worship overall is major shirk and they do not differentiate between shirk in actions and shirk in belief except when it comes to the ruler.

And they do not include people who fall into grave worship in this, for they see that this distinction is not to be made in this [i.e., grave worship], [they hold that] any shirk which a person commits as part of grave worship then he is outside the fold of Islaam without any elaboration, without [the excuse of] ignorance, without establishing the proof [against the person] … and so on.

But as for that [other shirk], then there is elaboration. And maybe if I am right, and you can correct me if I am wrong, it is in this way that [he says that] there is a mix-up [between the two types of shirk], even though he mentioned some fine statements.

Then the second point is that they say that he [i.e., Qutb] described shirk as being unsophisticated/simple, there is no doubt that it is so, so I don’t know whether they understand the meaning of unsophisticated or not?

He says: these people who worship idols, their shirk is unsophisticated, but those others who worship, obey and do what is in that beautiful hadith that you mentioned, then this is also included in shirk …

Al-Albaani: … yes.

Questioner: Is it right that we call idol worship primitive?

Al-Albaani: O my brother, may Allaah bless you. The phrase, ‘primitive shirk,’ has it been revealed in the Quraan or the Sunnah?

Quesitoner: No.

Al-Albaani: Okay … who said it? Just an ordinary person [lit. ‘Zaid from the people …’], we ask for an explanation from him, by the word ‘primitive’ does he mean that it does not take one out of Islaam after the proof has been established? If he means this we renounce it and if he means to slight [the seriousness of] this shirk then again we seek clarification from him, [asking], ‘What do you mean by the term, ‘primitive?’’

That which I understand is that he means that these Arabs are idol worshippers, not having a book like the Jews and the Christians to direct, show and guide them, even if only in some matters which remain preserved with the People of the Book and have not been altered, so they are idol worshippers living like this in ignorance. This is what he means by, ‘primitive shirk.’

I don’t understand [from this phrase] that he means that it is shirk which is not worthy of being given any attention, and I think you and people like you want to understand that it does.

For this reason, don’t stop at these words.

Why?

Because, firstly, they did not emanate from an infallible person. Secondly, try to understand what he means by this phrase, as is reported from some of the Salaf, ‘Look for an excuse for your brother,’ this [i.e., looking for an excuse] is when a phrase has a suggestion of something against the legislation. As for when the phrase is not clear, then take it to hold the better of the two meanings.

Questioner: Maybe in this, inshaa Allaah …

1 Comment
January 3, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb and his advice to the Youth | 4 |


 

The Meccan Man: I will mention now, O Shaikh, statements like this and how some of our noble brothers take it to have a bad meaning, and maybe you can correct the statements like these [which will be mentioned].

In some of his books, Sayyid Qutb says: that the idol-worship which Ibrahim عليه السلام asked his Lord to save him and his children from is not represented ‘only’ in those unsophisticated forms which the Arabs in their ignorance would practice or which various idol worshippers would engage in, in various bodily forms like stones, trees, animals, birds, stars, fire, spirits; that all of these primitive forms do not cover all the forms of associating partners with Allaah nor do they cover all the forms of idol worship; and that restricting shirk to refer to these unsophisticated forms prevents us from seeing the other forms of shirk which have no limit and prevents us from correctly viewing the reality of the forms of shirk which mankind engages in … the forms of shirk which mankind has been afflicted with from the new Jaahiliyyah; and that we must delve deeply into understanding the nature of shirk and its connection to idols just as we must delve deeply into the meaning of idols and its evolving representation in the newly fashioned ignorance [of today].

We would like our Shaikh’s comments and then we will read the comments of one of our noble brothers on these statements.

Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that this speech is sound, one hundred per cent.

And sufficient in that regard is His Saying, the Most High, “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allaah,” [Tawbah 9:31], that which has been reported concerning this aayah when it was revealed, [and] naturally, it was revealed concerning the Christians … from the few Arabs who did become Christians in the Days of Ignorance was Adiyy ibn Haatim at-Taa’i.

Then Allaah the Mighty and Majestic guided him and he embraced Islaam, [this is mentioned] in the well-known story reported in the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad and others. So when this aayah was revealed it was problematic for Adiyy ibn Haatim at-Taa’i because he understood it to mean the shirk of worshipping idols; the man [i.e., Sayyid Qutb] rejected that all of shirk be restricted to [mean] this type of idol-worship and idolatry.

So he عليه السلام said to Adiyy, clarifying to him that the general, comprehensive meaning of associating partners with Allaah the Mighty and Majestic is in following other than His Sharee’ah, he said to him, ‘Didn’t you, when they would declare something permissible to be forbidden for you, take it to be forbidden? And when they declared something forbidden to be permissible, you took it to be permissible?’ So Adiyy replied saying that as for that then it did occur. So he replied, ‘So that was your taking the scholars and monks as lords besides Allaah.’

So now this type of shirk is not noticed even by those who proclaim that Haakimiyyah is for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.

And in this regard I remember when I used to be in Damascus, in Yarmouk Camp specifically, in the Salaahud-Deen Mosque to be precise, the Imaam, a youth from the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon, got onto the pulpit and gave a fiery sermon saying that judgement [al-Haakmiyyah] is for Allaah the Mighty and Majestic. Subhaanallaah!

When he prayed and finished … now look, I turned his attention to a mistake he made, I’ve forgotten now what the mistake was [exactly but], I said to him, ‘This is in opposition to the Sunnah.’

So he said to me, ‘I’m a Hanafi.’

I said, ‘O my brother, may Allaah guide you. All of your sermon was about the fact that Haakimiyyah should be for Allaah the Mighty and Majestic–so what is the meaning of haakimiyyah? [Is it] just that when a non-Muslim comes to you with a law that goes against the Legislation then, ‘This is disbelief and we must stick to the Sharee’ah,’ but when a ruling which goes against the legislation comes from a Muslim then you follow it even though it opposes the legislation–so where is the haakmiyyah for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic?

So this meaning, in reality, is a comprehensive and all-inclusive meaning. And he [i.e., Sayyid Qutb] did well when he defended this doubt of those who stop [and don’t include these other forms of shirk], by saying, ‘… only …’ i.e., shirk is not ‘only’ this, he extended the meaning, and this extension is Islaam.

For this reason we say that when combatting shirk, stopping at individuals and leaving the rulers who judge by other than what Allaah has revealed [is not right, but at the same time] this does not mean that we enter the field of declaring people to be disbelievers and throwing them out of Islaam–it is enough of a sin on them that they judge by other than what Allaah has revealed.

And the detail which we regard as religion before Allaah is that there is disbelief and lesser disbelief, there is disbelief in actions and disbelief in belief. This true/correct particularisation is what makes us balanced and causes us not to rush into declaring the rulers to be disbelievers … so we differentiate between the ruler who believes in what Allaah has legislated but follows his desires in some of the things he opposes the legislation in. The callers must work on this aspect of tawheed too.

But the reality, [and] I will make a frank statement: I say that the callers to tawheed today are in a bitter test. Such that you will find that the answer to every resolution [passed by a ruler, whether it be right or wrong] is, ‘This is the order of the ruler.’ True or not? ‘This is the order of the ruler.’

So we’ve gone backwards, we’ve fallen into what we were warning against: why do we not then turn towards da’wah in general and not, ‘only’ that which is connected to the public. So this expression totally resembles the word ‘only’ used there, so he qualified it to mean combatting shirk associated with the public whilst leaving the rulers without advising them or warning them or renouncing [the shirk], [doing this] without rebelling against them.

Is the answer clear?

Someone else: This doesn’t demand confronting the rulers?

Al-Albaani: It doesn’t demand that. [Ed. Note: i.e., warning against judging by other than what Allaah has revealed does not demand that you confront the rulers but only that it is warned against in a scholarly manner, along with advising the rulers without doing that which will lead to harm]

Another questioner …

Leave a comment
January 1, 2012

Al-Albaani asked about Salmaan and his advice to the Youth | 3 |


 

Questioner: O Shaikh! I don’t know … the first question which I asked you, is it a mistake in aqidah? [He’s referring to the question he asked the Shaikh which is mentioned in this post.]

Al-Albaani: Which one?

Questioner: Their saying, ‘If the Prophets and the righteous people waged war against shirk which contradicts Laa ilaaha illallaah up until the Day of Resurrection …’

Al-Albaani: [This saying that the Prophets didn’t wage war against shirk in al-Uluhiyyah but only shirk in al-Haakimiyyah] is the greatest misguidance. And I already answered you about Noah عليه السلام.

Questioner: He also said that.

Al-Albaani: Who?

Questioner: Shaikh Salmaan [al-Awdah].

Al-Albaani: Where?

Questioner: In this book.

Al-Albaani: Show me the book.

Questioner: Page one hundred and seventy.

Al-Albaani [reading from the book]: He says, ‘And that they, i.e., the callers, know that if the Prophets and the righteous people up until the Day of Resurrection, fought against the types of shirk which go against Laa ilaaha illallaah which were only connected to social customs no one except a few would have confronted them or stood in their faces.’

Here the word ‘sha’biyyah’, does it have [a meaning] that is understood in the Arabic language or not?

Questioner: O Shaikh! What I understand, and Allaah knows best, and I could be mistaken in that …

Al-Albaani: We all could be.

Questioner: Social customs are these [things] present among the people, for example like sitting at the graves, performing tawaaf around the graves, taking oaths … amulets … and so on, and Allaah knows best.

Al-Albaani: Yes, yes. But is the call to tawheed limited to this?

Questioner: Is the call to tawheed what?

Al-Albaani: Limited to this only, namely fighting against shirk associated with customs?

Questioner: No, rather shirk in its totality.

Al-Albaani: Okay, so [in the book] he is referring to specific people, he understands, whether rightly or mistakenly, that they are pleased with the rulers and the things they do in opposition to the Sharee’ah, and that they only pay attention to curing the hearts of the public and individuals.

Maybe I have been able to clarify to you what the man meant? Namely, that the call to the truth is not only restricted to rectifying the public and not the rulers, and being happy with what the rulers do and leaving them to do those things which oppose the sharee’ah.

Questioner: O Shaikh! Is the last sentence correct?

Al-Albaani: Let us listen to what the people of Makkah say.

The Meccan Man: I say: the reality is that in many issues the people either go to extremes or fall short. So you’ll either have some people who do not understand the call to tawheed to be anything except Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah alone whilst leaving the people in their major shirk, and as they call it shirk associated with the graves.

Or [on the other hand] you have people who do not like or, who, from the moment a person says, ‘Haa …’ [i.e., as soon as they open their mouth to say, ‘Haakimyyah’] [from the moment a person says], ‘Tawheed includes Haakimiyaah for Allaah the Mighty and Majestic,’ they are sensitive to this issue and will not look at it either closely or from afar, rather they are at war with what is called grave-worship.

And if we are just in this issue the truth will be known, that the call to tawheed, the call to Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah is that judgement be for Allaah alone, and from our reading [we see that] many of the writers, and the truth will be said, by Haakimiyyah sometimes mean total Haakmiyyah, that all of it is for Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, and sometimes by it they mean the politics which they run behind.

So it is from justice and fairness that we say: Tawheed includes both aspects. So if these statements, O my brother, are understood to mean that if the Prophets had just prevented the people from the graves no-one would have opposed them … this is the meaning of the statements, but there is a second point, my brother.

With the permission of our beloved Shaikh: the statements are not taken to mean what the reader has understood, for if that is the case then many people will not understand [the statements correctly], rather the statements are to be understood in light of other statements made by the man, either in other places [in his works] or from his actual stance.

So if the man is well known for [his] complete tawheed and is a caller to it, or [it is well known] that he is a monotheist [muwahhid] and then he says a word or two–they are not to be understood in the worst possible manner, because if it were taken to mean that then he would be an heretic in every meaning of the word, and he would have left the fold of Islaam, and we see that his actual state of affairs is not like that.

So this is a matter worthy [of being mentioned]. And on this occasion [it is fitting that we mention that] taking statements to mean the worst possible meaning is not a principle from those of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah.

I remember, O Shaikh, that …

Leave a comment