The Albaani Site

Translation from the Works of the Reviver of this Century

Tag: albaanee

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.

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.

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

New Free Arabic DVD Download Available of 901 of The Shaikh’s Tapes with Search Facility


 

The Arabic Shaikh al-Albaani website has produced a free DVD of the Shaikh’s Al-Hudaa wan-Noor series of tapes.  The DVD includes 901 tapes.  The size of the file is about 4.18GB, once you’ve downloaded it you have to burn it to a DVD for it to work.

You can actually search through the tapes by typing a particular word you may be after, which is quite handy.  As an example, if you searched for, ‘النووي’ it would give you all the recordings which have the word ‘An-Nawawi’ listed in the cassette titles.

You can find the download link here. [Update Feb 2015, this link no longer seems to be working and I haven’t been able to find a replacement.]

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

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 …

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 …

Al-Albaani asked about Salmaan and his advice to the Youth | 2 | Those Who Rush into Issues which the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and His Students Would Take Their Time Over


 

Someone Else: O Shaikh! The state of affairs concerning what goes on amongst the youth in many parts of the world is very bleak. We don’t doubt that there are people who have deviated, that are mistaken, that are innovators. [But] many times the confrontation has become personal, a confrontation over mere gossip [qeel wal-qaal] and the youth do not understand the wasted time that that entails nor the great antagonism that it foments between them. This is something they do not notice.

We don’t doubt that the truth is with them, but when I ask many of the youth how much Quraan they have memorised they will say, ‘Three Juzz,’ and if I ask them how long they have been debating this issue, they will say, ‘Three years.’

For three years they’ve been sitting, [discussing things like], ‘Zaid [i.e., so and so] is reliable, he’s not reliable, he’s a kaafir, he’s not a kaafir, he’s an apostate, he’s not an apostate, he said what he said, he’s a deviant, he’s not a deviant.’

Maybe he is [in fact] a deviant or mistaken or misguided, [but] they think that if someone comes to advise them telling them that this is a waste of time, most of them will think that the person advising them is with those deviants, and this is something strange, when all he wants is to advise them.

[You’ll find] a youth, a seventeen year old, who hasn’t memorised anything except a little–[but] he’ll be discussing very deep issues which the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his students would take their time and deliberate patiently and carefully over. But these youth will rush to such issues. So we want some direction concerning things like this.

Al-Albaani: Many times I’m asked, ‘What is your opinion about so and so?’ and I understand from the questioner that he is either for the person he is asking about or against him. And maybe the one he is asking about is from our brothers, and maybe he is from our old brothers about whom it is said, ‘He has deviated/strayed.’

So I advise the questioner, my brother, what have you to do with Zaid, Bakr and Umar? [Trans. note: i.e., like saying Tom, Dick and Harry]. Remain on the right course as you have been commanded [cf. Surah Hud 11:112].

Learn knowledge.

This knowledge will enable you to distinguish between the righteous person and the sinner, between the one who is correct and the one who is mistaken and so on. Thereafter, don’t hate your Muslim brother just because–I don’t say just because he made a mistake–rather I say [don’t hate your Muslim brother] just because he has deviated/strayed, but has strayed in an issue or two or three but in other issues he has not deviated.

We find in the Imaams of Hadith people whose hadiths they would accept [yet] in their biographies it will be said that he was a Murji’ee, a Khaariji, a Naasibi and so on. These are all faults and misguidance but they had a balance which they stuck to and they would not let the weight of one fault outweigh many good deeds, or [they would not let the weight of] two or three faults outweigh all of the good deeds [the person has] the greatest of which is the testimony that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah.

I say, for example, regarding Salmaan [al-Awdah] and people like him: some of our Salafi brothers accuse them of being from the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon. I say: I don’t know whether he is from the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon. But would that the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon were like him. The Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon fight the call to tawheed and say that it splits the Ummah and divides the [united] word. As for these people, as far as I know, and the people of Makkah know their mountain passes best, they call to tawheed and study tawheed, isn’t that so?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Thus, if only the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon were like that. And maybe some political activity is found among them [i.e., among Salmaan and people like him], and they have something which resembles revolting against the rulers … and so on.

Yes, the Khawaarij were like that, the real Khawaarij which the scholars have no doubt were the ones referred to in the Prophet’s عليه السلام saying, “The Khawaarij are the dogs of the Fire,” the ones who this refers to are those who rebelled against Ali and as is mentioned in the famous hadith of the two Sahihs, “… they will leave Islaam like an arrow darts through the game’s body …” they [i.e., those who rebelled against Ali] are the ones intended here.

Yet along with this, they [i.e., the scholars of hadith] would narrate hadith from them and regarded them as Muslims. So they left their misguidance and made clear their good deeds, and this is by way of His Saying, the 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].

So these people, if they have strayed, and I don’t think it is a deviation in aqidah, but rather in methods … whatever the case we ask Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, that He makes us a balanced nation, which does not go to extremes or fall short.

Questioner: O Shaikh! …

Al-Albaani asked about Maududi and Salmaan and his advice to the Youth | 1


Continuing from the same recording made in 1993.

Questioner: There is a question, O Shaikh. What do you say about someone who has opposed the Imaams of Islaam in a particular issue which they have united upon and the proof has been established against him but he does not turn back, rather, add to that the fact that he praises some of the Sufis and mufawwidah, praised the one who goes by the saying of Jahm regarding the Quraan and slanders some of the Companions, in fact, some of the Messengers, calling them Imaams and harsh. In fact, he praises some of the heretics who have permitted apostasy and have vilified the aqidah and the Prophet عليه السلام and the Companions and the People of Hadith, and says that there is a lot of good in them, and calls their aberrations and misguidance ijtihaad, saying, “… even though we are wary of some of their ijtihaad …” So is such a person an innovator and should we single him out and say that so and so is an innovator to warn the Ummah and out of sincerity to Allaah, His Book, His Prophet, the Imaams of the Muslims and their general folk?

Al-Albaani: He mentioned this in a book?

Questioner: In various places.

Al-Albaani: Not in a book?

Questioner: In some books too.

Al-Albaani: Okay, books like?

Questioner: He’s the one who praised this …

Al-Albaani: Don’t digress, don’t digress.

Questioner: The man who said these things, said them in some of his books like Al-Adaalah al-Ijtimaa’iyyah or Fee Dhilaal al-Quraan [i.e., Sayyid Qutb] but the one who praised him and called him a mujtahid and so on did so in a tape, in some tapes, and also another person like this guy has a book called Al-Khilaafah wal-Mulk and he has another book in which he spoke about some of the Prophets, about Noah, for example, saying that when he said, “…My Lord, indeed my son is of my family …” [Hud 11:45] that emotions of the days of ignorance over took him, and that when Yusuf said, “… Appoint me over the storehouses of the land. Indeed, I will be a knowing guardian …” [Yusuf 12:55] that he was a dictator looking to set up a dictatorship like Mussolini in our time.

Al-Albaani: Who is the one who says this?

Questioner: In the book Al-Khilaafah wal-Mulk … Maududi …

Al-Albaani: Who is he?

Questioner: Maududi …

Al-Albaani: Maududi. And who is the one who praises these statements?

Questioner: Wallaahi, one of the callers praised them …

Al-Albaani: Ya’ni, backbiting, [you said], “One of the callers …” if you name him it’s backbiting?

Questioner: No, inshaa Allaah, it’s not backbiting. Shaikh Salmaan praised him.

Al-Albaani: I’m saying: did he praise the statements or the person saying them?

Questioner: He praised them, wallaahi, in a tape.

Al-Albaani: Listen. Did you understand what I said?

Questioner: Okayrepeat the question to me …

Someone else: The Shaikh is saying, “Did he praise these statements or the person who made them?”

Questioner: No, the one who made them.

Al-Albaani: So if he praised the one who made them I may praise him too, does that mean I deem everything he says to be correct?

Questioner: No it doesn’t.

Al-Albaani: So what do you mean by this question?

Questioner: We heard in some cassettes that one of the Shaikhs went to him and spoke to him saying that so and so, i.e., Maududi, has said such and such, so he [i.e., the person they went to] said, ‘Wallaahi, if I were asked on the Day of Judgement [about him], I will say he is an Imaam and a Mujaddid.’ So this issue had us unsettled and we said we would ask the Shaikh [i.e., al-Albaani ] about it.

Al-Albaani: Look, my brother.

I advise you and the other youths who–it seems to us are on a crooked path, and Allaah knows best–to stop wasting your time in criticising each other, saying so and so said this, and so and so said that, and so and so said this.

Because, firstly, this has nothing to do with knowledge whatsoever. And secondly, this way fills one with spite and brings about malice and hatred in the hearts.

It is only upon you to seek knowledge.

For knowledge is the thing which will uncover whether these statements of praise about a certain person are referring to that person who has many mistakes? And whether, for example, it is correct for us to call him a person of innovation? And therefore, whether he is an innovator?

What have we to do with delving deeply into such issues?

I advise that you do not delve deeply into such issues to this extent because the reality is that we now complain of this division which has arisen between those who attribute themselves to the call of the Book and the Sunnah, or as we say, the Salafi Da’wah.

The greatest cause of this division, and Allaah knows best, is the soul which is the persistent enjoiner of evil [cf. Surah Yusuf 12:53] and it is not the difference in some ideological opinions.

This is my advice.

Another questioner: O Shaikh! …

Why do you Concern Yourself with These People?


Continuing from the same sitting mentioned in the last post.

Questioner: O Shaikh, a number of Yemeni brothers came to you asking you about a Jam’iyyah. There was some obscurity in their question … and he said that some of the people of such and such a charitable organisation [Jam’iyyah] are the students of Shaikh Muqbil and so on and so on even though Shaikh Muqbil has warned against them many times and has spoken against them harshly when warning against them, in fact, he freed himself from them and they greatly vilify Shaikh Muqbil.

In fact, in a cassette called, Hiwaarun Haadi ma’a Muqbil ibn Haadi, one of them said to him, ‘In my eyes you and al-Ghazali are the same,’ and this is a student of Shaikh Muqbil’s saying to him, ‘In my eyes you and al-Ghazali are the same. Al-Ghazali spoke against the Sunnah and you speak against the Sunnah in the name of defending the Sunnah.’

And one of them who is also a student of Shaikh Muqbil’s, but who is a disobedient student said to me, ‘The Ahlul-Hadith have harshness in them and a lack of worship, look at Shaikh Muqbil,’ and at the same time they praise the people of innovation.

I’m not talking about the people of innovation concerning whose innovation one may have a doubt–rather the innovators like the grave worshippers. There is a Sufi in Hadramaut who has every calamity in him, i.e., a grave worshipper, a mufawwid [someone who says we don’t know the meanings of Allaah’s Attributes], everything, so they go to him and study with him in fact some of them said, ‘The open heartedness of this Sufi is better than the intolerance of Muqbil.’ And this Sufi sends the children of those whom they call as-Saadah [Ed. Note: i.e., those who they claim are Haashimis whose family tree goes back to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم] to Saqqaaf [the well-known Sufi who lives in Jordan].

And now Ali Hasan Abul-Harith told me that their numbers have reached forty, by Allaah, this news was like a bolt out of the blue … when he started to see the youth turning towards the Sunnah he took their kids and sent them here [to Jordan, to the Sufi Saqqaaf]. So these hizbis, those from these Jam’iyyah’s or the hizbis in general, these people, wallaahi, they try to make the people stop going, wallaahi, to Shaikh Muqbil while at the same time they praise these innovators and send their children here to Saqqaaf and others.

So what do you say about that, O Shaikh, and we have grown tired of them and they have bothered and disturbed us?

Al-Albaani: I say, you … may Allaah guide you. Why are you distressed/concerned about these people? We have no power, my brother, why do you concern yourself with these people? They are numerous, the whole world is full of them, falsehood is like this.

Questioner: Many people follow them.

Al-Albaani: Here from the aayahs which are relevant, “Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this message, [and] out of sorrow.” [Kahf 18:6]

My brother, take an instruction and lesson from the consolation the Lord of the Worlds gave to His Noble Prophet in this aayah, even though these people [mentioned in the aayah] were disbelievers, misguided people, polytheists and so on. Those people [who you mentioned], even though they are misguided, whatever the case they have not left the fold of Islaam and [have not left being] Muslims.

For this reason I am amazed, wallaahi, every time someone sees a person or people who he used to think were Salafi but who then deviated that they say this and that and this and that.

This saying [i.e., that the Sufis are tolerant whereas Shaih Muqbil, rahimahullaah, is harsh] emanates from two things: either ignorance or feigning ignorance, or both.

The Sufis are well known, for example, in Syria, so and so the Sufi will not reject [something but at the same time will not] fulfil its rights, he has a sweet tongue–because he does not order the good or forbid the evil, he will not love for the Sake of Allaah or hate for the Sake of Allaah. Whereas a person who is on the Path of the Salaf loves for the Sake of Allaah and hates for His Sake, he will at times speak softly and at other times will speak sternly, because this is the Sunnah of the Prophet عليه السلام.

The Sufi does not know sternness because the ahkaam of the sharee’ah do not concern him, what concerns him is attracting the hearts, what concerns him is that the people come forward to kiss his hand, nay, even both his hands at the same time. For this reason when these people say that [Shaikh] Muqbil is harsh but that Sufi is easy-going and soft they do so because of their ignorance or due to their purposefully ignoring [the truth] and because they are running behind that which will benefit them personally.

You said some Yemeni brothers came to me and then what was it [that you were reminding me of?]

Questioner: They wanted to obscure [the situation by using what you said in the wrong way] they said that …

Al-Albaani: What shall we do with them?

Questioner: I asked because, of course, many of the youth there listen to the statements of the Shaikh [i.e., Shaikh al-Albaani] so when they hear what you say, inshaa Allaah, the situation will become clear to them. I remember that in the fatwa, [there was a mention of the permissibility or not of] putting money in the bank, you don’t remember, O Shaikh?

Interjection: … they started forming groups, the tape is present.

Al-Albaani: O my brother, what can we do with them?

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 784.

The video:

Knowledge is Light


This sitting was recorded on the 1st of Rabee’ul-Awwal 1414ah which corresponds to the 18th September 1993ce.

Questioner: In the Name of Allaah. May the Prayers and Peace of Allaah be upon the Messenger.

We have a lot of brothers who have a strong, strong, focus on al-Haakimiyyah [i.e., that judgement is for Allaah alone] and who are complacent about major shirk, shirk of the graves and mausoleums.

Interjection: And that is what our companion spoke about on the tape.

Questioner: And they call it unsophisticated, primitive shirk.

Al-Albaani: What do they call it?

Questioner: ‘Unsophisticated, primitive shirk,’ they took this from their callers. So they say that if the Prophets and the righteous people waged war against shirk which contradicts Laa ilaaha illallaah until the Day of Resurrection and which is only connected to the social customs [Ed. note: i.e., connected to shirk which is widespread amongst the people in tawheed Uluhiyyah] no one except a few would have confronted them or stood in their faces. What do you say, O Shaikh? [Ed. Note: he is trying to say that these people say that if you call to tawheed you will not face any hassle but if you call to haakimiyyah [i.e., that judgement is only for Allaah] you will face a lot of opposition and so this is what should be done].

Al-Albaani: My remarks are that it is not a goal in itself and is not an objective for the caller to [seek to] have the people oppose him. Rather the objective is to convey the da’wah to the people, and if they respond then how excellent and if not then that is the way of those who have passed before them.

This statement of theirs makes the listener feel as though the religion orders one to take it upon himself to clash with others, that if today, for example, you called to tawheed then no one will oppose you but if you got busy with politics then they will and will show you enmity … etc.

This is the biggest proof that this group like many of the individuals from the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon talk at random about what they do not know.

I’ve been asked more than once that the head of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimoon in Algeria says that if the Prophet عليه السلام were alive today in this day and age he would have worn a jacket, trousers and a tie, “When a person speaks based upon ignorance then nothing comes before his ignorance.”

“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” [Nahl 16:125] This is the objective, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allaah an excellent pattern …” [Ahzaab 33: 21] And Allaah’s Prophet was addressed with His Saying, “… so from their guidance take an example …” [An’aam 6:90 ] So all of the Messengers began with the call to tawheed, namely, these statements [which those people who say that haakimiyyah is more important make] … I say that Noah عليه السلام who, according to the Quraan, remained amongst his people for a thousand years less fifty, what did he do in those thousand years?

These people, what they say, if they actually knew what they were saying [and it was not upon ignorance] they would have disbelieved and left Islaam–because they are saying that the Prophets were wrong generally and Noah specifically عليه السلام because he was distinct amongst all of the Prophets because Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, blessed his life such that he remained amongst his people for nine hundred and fifty years.

We know that the sharee’ahs which came before that of Islaam did not have this expansive fiqh which encompasses all aspects of one’s life, it was a simple fiqh, and for this reason during Noah’s عليه السلام long, extended, blessed life his main concern was that the people worship Allaah and refrain from worshipping false deities.

This [i.e., what the Shaikh just said] negates what they say, and for this reason they are at the limit of ignorance, and now they follow the path of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen, who are those whom a generation will soon have passed by without them having put anything forward for Islaam except shouting and yelling like soldiers marching on the spot not moving forward at all.

For this reason no attention is paid to what these people say. And I am amazed at some of our brothers, students of knowledge, hardly will they have heard of some misguidance from any ignoramus than they will come to you and say, ‘What do you think of so and so … who are these … by Allaah we were sitting somewhere and …’

Questioner: O Shaikh, the problem is that very many people follow them who say the same thing, like al-Jazaa’iri, the one who said that if the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were alive in our time he would be like this and that. So the one who said this statement was a very well-known caller who lots of people follow to such an extent that if you said to some of them, “So and so [i.e., the one they follow] made a mistake …” … he is ready for you to say that Umar made a mistake, ash-Shaafi’i made a mistake but if you say that so and so [i.e., the person they follow] made a mistake he will go all out on you and there will be no stopping him.

Al-Albaani: Okay …my brother, it is not for us except to call [the people to the truth] with that which is best.

Knowledge is light.

These people fall into such misguidance due to their ignorance of Islaam, for this reason we have to be kind to them and regard them as being ill and try to cure them with wisdom and beautiful preaching as much as we are able to.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 784.

A Refutation of a Doubt Concerning The Descent of Jesus, the Son of Mary عليه السلام


 

Questioner: Some scholars say that Jesus’ descent عليه السلام or that the hadith of the Anti-Christ [Al-Maseeh ad-Dajjaal] is weak and that it has no basis because Jesus عليه السلام… i.e., after a human passes away or was living on earth, he will not return again until the Day of Resurrection, he will not return to earth again, and the aayah they used as a proof is, “[Mention] when Allaah said, “O Jesus!  Indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself …” Aali-Imraan 3:55 to the end of the aayah, so it means that his death has taken place, so how will he be able to descend after his death?

Al-Albaani: The answer, quite frankly, is that those who make such statements … and the onus is on the narrator, i.e., you are the narrator so the onus is on you, you are the one who is transmitting [what they said, i.e., the onus is on you to have asked the question correctly and thus the answer I give will be based upon what you asked].

So the quotes that you just transmitted are from people who are not scholars, why [are they not scholars]? Because where does a scholar take his knowledge from? “Allaah said … Allaah’s Messenger said …” okay, after, “Allaah said … Allaah’s Messenger said …” we have nothing except what the Salaf as-Saalih said.

How do we understand what Allaah said in His Book and what His Prophet said in his hadith?  [We do so] according to what the Salaf as-Saalih were upon. And I will remind you of the aayah, “And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers–We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.” Nisaa 4:115

So now, this quote which you narrated to us from those people, is it, “… the way of the believers …” [as mentioned in the above aayah?] Is it the way of the Salaf? Is it the way of the four Imaams? Fourteen Imaams? Forty? As we mentioned, the scholars of the Muslims, maa shaa Allaah [are great in number].

I say: this is not the way of the believers, this is the way of one of two men:

Either an ignorant Muslim or a kaafir who is concealed amongst the Muslims and who tries to scheme against or corrupt the creed of the Muslims with philosophising like the type you mentioned.

And which is what? That Allaah said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself …” … we say to this person: what does, “… indeed I will take you …” mean? Is the word al-Wafaah [which is the word used in the aayah] only used to mean death in the Arabic language? The answer is no, because al-Wafaah [death] comes with the meaning of sleep? True or not?

Questioner: True.

Al-Albaani: “And it is He who takes your souls by night and knows what you have committed by day. Then He revives you therein [i.e., by day] that a specified term may be fulfilled.” An’aam 6:60

Questioner: Allaah takes [Trans. note: same verb as the one used in the aayah mentioned in the question about Jesus] the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” Zumar 39:42

Al-Albaani: Yes, the aayahs in the Noble Quraan explain each other. So the verb الوفاة/al-Wafaah [lit. death] does not mean death [here], and concerning this ayaah that which comes after, “… indeed I will take you …” explains it. Who is being addressed? Jesus. So let us, by way of explanation, say, “… indeed I will take you, O Jesus …” in soul and body, and [then Allaah said] , “… and raise you to Myself …” who is being addressed here? Jesus. Namely, [“I will raise you to Myself …”] [both] your soul and your body.

Like His Saying, the Most High, in Surah al-Israa which [brother] Abu Bakr mentioned just now, even though in doing so he was wrong [i.e., in a previous question], “Exalted is He Who took His Servant [i.e., Prophet Muhammad] by night from al-Masjid al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsaa …” Al-Israa 17:1 some of the tafsir scholars of the past and hadith scholars said that the Prophet’s Ascension was by his soul and not his body, but the people of knowledge refuted them, saying, [in the aayah] “Exalted is He Who took His Servant [i.e., Prophet Muhammad] by night from al-Masjid al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsaa …” the servant is in body and soul, likewise Jesus is body and soul, so He said, “… indeed I will take you …” i.e., I will take your body and soul and raise you up to Me, i.e., just as you are, with your body and your soul.

The clear Arabic tongue mentioned in unanimous [mutawaatir] hadiths from the Prophet عليه السلام supports this meaning, in some of those hadith he said, “Verily, Jesus the son of Mary will descend among you as a just judge. And so [he] will break the cross and kill the pigs, and wealth will become so abundant that no one will accept it. And a [single] prostration that day will be more beloved to a believer than the world and everything in it.” Bukhaari and Muslim.

So, the Prophet عليه السلام confirmed this raising which was mentioned in the previous aayah, “… and raise you to Myself …” and there is an ending [to this], which is that this revered individual who will be taken up [to Allaah] in both body and soul will then descend as a just ruler, break the Cross, kill the pigs and so on until the end of the hadith.

So Jesus عليه السلام is alive in Heaven.

He will descend to establish for these Christians who took him as a deity instead of Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, that he is a servant on one hand and that Muhammad عليه السلام is better than him on the other, since he will judge by his [i.e., Prophet Muhammad’s عليه السلام] sharee’ah and will be a part of his Ummah.

Such that in another authentic hadith there occurs that he said, “Jesus the son of Mary will descend by the white minaret in the eastern part of Damascus on the wings of two angels,” this is in Sahih Muslim in another hadith [it is mentioned that] when he descends at Fajr time, it will have been established for Muhammad the Mahdi [to lead it], Muhammad the son of Abdullaah al-Mahdi, well-known as The [Imaam] Mahdi, so the prayer would have been established for him to lead, but when he sees that Jesus عليه السلام has descended he will ask him to go forward to lead it, but Jesus will say, ‘No, an honour bestowed by Allaah on this Ummah.’ So Jesus the Prophet of the Christians and the Jews who disbelieved in him–will follow [Imaam] Mahdi in prayer, [Mahdi] who is a person from the Ummah of the Prophet صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.

All of these hadiths are authentic.

For this reason, al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani and many others like him from those well-acquainted with the science of hadith say that the hadiths about the belief concerning the descent of Jesus عليه السلام at the end of time are unanimous [mutawaatir]. It is not the hadith of [only] one person which maybe authentic and maybe weak [no, it is unanimous].

Hadiths which have come from different paths of narration as you just heard now. Just now I quoted you three hadiths without straining myself [i.e., they are so well-known and numerous], you see, so if a person wanted to gather all of the hadiths [about this] for you … one time I gathered forty authentic hadiths [about it], some of the [hadiths of the] Companions have more than one path of narration … etc.

So how is it [then] said about this hadith, “It is weak.”

It [really] means that it is not possible that any hadith can be regarded as authentic by such people.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 528.

The video:

Asking For Allaah’s Mercy For Those who Fell into Innovations Connected to Aqidah | End | If we open the door to boycotting, ostracising and declaring people to be innovators, we will have to go and live in the mountains.


 

Maybe it is pertinent on this occasion to mention the well-known narration from Imaam Maalik when a man came to him and said, ‘O Maalik! Allaah’s Ascendancy?’ He replied, ‘Al-Istiwaa is known. The ‘how’ is not and asking about it is an innovation. Remove the man for he is an innovator.’ So the man didn’t become an innovator just because he asked a question, he wanted to understand something but Imaam Maalik feared that as a result an objection to the Salafi Aqidah would occur, so he said, ‘Remove the man, for he is an innovator.’

Look now how the means differ, do you or me, or Bakr, or Umar or Zaid and so on think that … if we were to ask a person from the common folk of the Muslims let alone their elite a question like this … shall we give him the same answer that [Imaam] Maalik gave and put him in the same category as that man, saying, ‘Remove him for he is an innovator?’

No. Why?

Because the time [we live in] differs, the means which in those days were accepted are not acceptable today–because they harm more than they benefit. And this speech has a connection with the well-known principle of boycotting in Islaam, or ostracizing for the Sake of Allaah.

Many times I am asked that so and so is my friend and companion but he does not pray, he smokes, does such and such … and so on, shall I boycott him? I say [in answer]: do not boycott him, because you ostracizing him is what he wants. Your leaving him will not benefit him, on the contrary, it will make him happy and will [just] leave him in his misguidance.

And I remember on this occasion the example of that sinner, someone who had abandoned the prayer but who repented. He went to pray his first prayer at the mosque and lo and behold [when he gets there] he finds the door closed, and so says, ‘You’re closed and I have a day off [from praying]!’ [i.e., the first chance he got he went back to his old ways].

So this sinner which the [practicing] Muslim wants to boycott, it is as though from his behaviour he is saying [the same thing as the person in the example above], ‘You’re closed and I have a day off …’ [i.e., he wants the practicing Muslim to leave him so he can carry on as he is].

Because a righteous person accompanying a sinner hinders that sinner from committing his sins, and that sinner does not want that. So if a righteous person boycotts him, it is what the sinner wants. For this reason, boycotting is a legislated means through which the realization of a legislated benefit is desired, i.e., to educate/discipline the person being ostracized. So if the boycotting does not educate him, and in fact just causes him to increase in misguidance upon misguidance, then it is not applied.

Today we live in a time in which it is not right that we stick to the means that the Salaf used to use, because they were moving forth from a position where [the sunnah] was strong and [innovation was] weak.

Today, have a look at the state of the Muslims, they are weak in everything, not only in the governments, individuals [too], the state of affairs is as he عليه السلام said, “Indeed Islaam began as something strange and will return to being strange. So glad-tidings to the strangers.” They said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Who are the strangers?’ He replied, “They are the righteous few among the evil masses, those who disobey them are more than those obey them.”

So if we open the door to boycotting, ostracising and declaring people to be innovators–we will have to go and live in the mountains.

Rather it is obligatory on us today to, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.” [Nahl 16:125]

Questioner: As a completion of this discussion, O Shaikh, this issue as you have noticed is something which repeats itself often these days … in the following comments I wanted to point to something so that the benefit [from this discussion] will be complete, inshaa Allaah. And this is something which the brothers who adopt this stance mention.

They say that, “We say that mercy should not be sought for them [i.e., for those scholars] because asking for Allaah’s Mercy for them is permissible but not obligatory. We do not prevent nor declare to be forbidden the asking of Mercy for them but we refrain [from doing so] so that it does not show some form of praise, or recommendation, or commendation for the people of innovation.  We may say that these people are not innovators for example and are not from the major innovators, but we do not praise them or say they are scholars. For example, when mention is made of Al-Nawawi we do not say, ‘Imaam al-Nawawi,’” rather sometimes they refrain from and shun quoting from them or referring to them.

Such that in a talk one of our brothers was giving he quoted something from one of these, and the thing he quoted was quite frankly a Salafi quote which aided the manhaj, [but] they said to him, ‘How can you quote from these people?’ And by ‘these people’ I am not referring to those who our Shaikh [al-Albaani] mentioned, like Ibn Hajr or al-Nawawi, but let’s say, for example, Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Qutb, so he [i.e., the people who say you should not ask for mercy] said, ‘How can you quote these people when they are known not to be Salafi, so when you, being a Salafi, quote from them, it is as though you are praising them and as a result the people will say that these people are Salafis. And this is a way of deceiving the people regarding them and maybe [as a result] they will become like them in innovations and deviance and being far from seriousness.”

So if you, O Shaikh, see fit to comment on this.

Al-Albaani: Firstly, I don’t think this is what their objective is, and secondly, if their objective [by not quoting from these scholars or asking for Allaah’s Mercy for them] is a way of warning then I say:

These people [i.e., the ones who hold the views mentioned above of not asking for Allaah’s Mercy] who you just alluded to, do they read Fathul-Baari [i.e., the explanation of Sahih Bukhaari by Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani] or not?

Whichever of the two answers we assume, then it is a mistake in relation to them. If it is said they do not read it, then where do they understand Sahih al-Bukhaari from, its explanation, its understanding, the differences of opinion, the terminology, [things related to the] hadith and so on …

They will not find, in the whole world, explanations of Sahih Bukhaari that are entirely Salafi.

They will not find a [totally] Salafi explanation of Sahih Bukhaari like we want, and even if they did it would only have the main points [and wouldn’t be as detailed as Fathul-Baari]. As for this ocean replete with comprehensive knowledge, which Allaah granted to the author of Fath [ul-Baari] they will not find what it contains in any of the books that have taken up the task of explaining Sahih Bukhaari.

Thus, they will lose out on a huge amount of knowledge. So if they mean or what they say includes, amongst the things they warn against, preventing people from benefitting from what this Imaam [i.e., Ibn Hajr] says, then they will lose out on knowledge whereas it is possible for them to gather between taking the benefit and repelling the harm which is what the scholars do.

In the [whole] world now, not a scholar after al-Asqalaani and al-Nawawi can be found, to this day, who can do without benefitting from both of their explanations–this one’s [i.e., Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani’s] explanation of Bukhaari and that one’s [i.e., Imaam al-Nawawi’s] explanation of Muslim.

Yet along with that, when they [i.e., the scholars] take benefits from both of their books, they know that in many issues they were Ash’aris and were contrary to the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih [in those particular issues]. So with their knowledge and not with ignorance they [i.e., the scholars] were able to take the knowledge which benefits them from these two books or their authors, and turn away from what would harm them and not benefit them.

So I want to say that the thing I fear the most is that behind all of this [apparently] favourable but in reality false talk is a warning from benefitting from their books, and [that being the case] then there is a loss.

And if they say that we do benefit from both of their books and read them ourselves and to others too–if that is the case then what is the point of this procedure of refraining from asking for Allaah’s mercy for them when they are Muslims as we said at the beginning of this answer?

Additionally, what is the benefit or the fruit of their saying, “We do not say that it is not permissible to ask for Allaah’s Mercy for them, but we [personally] don’t, because he fell into innovation,” we just mentioned that not everyone who falls into innovation is called an innovator, not everyone who falls into disbelief is declared a disbeliever, the disbelief may have been unclear to this one and the innovation unclear to that one, we already said this.

Thus, there is no benefit from this cautiousness now. Thereafter, O my brother … the scholars who we inherited this good da’wah from–was their stance like this towards these Imaams? Was it like the stance of these new, novice, youngsters who claim Salafiyyah? They [i.e., those scholars] were like these [youngsters]? The opposite is the case. It is only natural that these [ignorant youth should try to] be like those who preceded us to this righteous da’wah.

Is there anything else?

End.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 666.

Asking For Allaah’s Mercy For Those who Fell into Innovations Connected to Aqidah | 4 | If You Call Someone an Innovator Either He Really is or it Goes Back on You


And finally I want to remind you of a reality about which there is no difference but I wanted to add something else to it which many of our youth in this day and age do not ponder over.

This reality is the statement he عليه السلام made in many hadiths, “Whoever declares a Muslim to be a disbeliever has committed disbelief,” this is a reality about which there is no doubt, and the detailed explanation of this is well-known from some other hadiths, i.e., if the one he has declared to be a disbeliever is [in fact] a disbeliever then he is correct but if not then it goes back on him.

This does not require a discussion because the hadith about it is clear, but I wanted to add to it and say: whoever declares a Muslim to be an innovator then either that Muslim [who he declared to be an innovator really] is an innovator or if not then he [i.e., the one who accused the other of being an innovator] is the innovator.

And this is the reality which I mentioned to you just now: that our youth declare the scholars to be innovators and they are the ones who have fall into innovation whilst they know not, and they [i.e., these hasty youth] do not want to commit innovations in fact they fight them, but the saying of the poet applies to them:

Sa’d led the camels to water while being wrapped up
Not like this, O Sa’d, are the camels taken to drink

[Ed. Note: namely he led the camels to water while being wrapped up such that he could not take his hands out of his garment, and thus did not perform his duty of tending to the camels correctly, and it is an example used for someone who falls short in carrying out a matter.]

For this reason, I advise our youth to stick to acting upon the Book and the Sunnah within the limits of their knowledge and not to tower over others who they cannot match in either knowledge or understanding, and maybe even righteousness.

So people like [Imaam] An-Nawawi and Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani–give me someone in the [whole of the] Islamic world like these two men.

Leave Sayyid Qutb, he was a man we revere for his striving but he was no more than an author, a man of letters, a composer [of words]–but he was not a scholar so there is nothing odd about the fact that things and things and things emanated from him which opposed the correct methodology.

As for the ones who alongside him mention An-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani and others like them … it is oppression to say about them that they are from the people of innovation, I know that they were both Ash’aris but they both did not intend to [wilfully] oppose the Book and the Sunnah, they erred and thought two things about the Ash’ari aqidah that they inherited: firstly that Imaam al-Asha’ri held that view but he only did so in the earlier days because he came back from holding that opinion, and secondly, they were under the false impression that it was correct, but it is not.

[Addressing the questioner:] Bring what you have [i.e., mention what beneficial points of knowledge you have] …

Questioner: O Shaikh, from the manhaj of the Salaf was that they would not judge a man to be from Ahlus-Sunnah except when he would have the characteristics of the [Ahlus-]Sunnah, and that if he innovated or praised the people of innovation then he would be counted as one of them, as the Salaf would say for example, “Whoever says that Allaah is not above the Heavens then he is a Jahmee.

Al-Albaani: Some of that is present, but do not forget what I just said to you: this does not mean that he is not a Muslim, just as when the Prophet عليه السلام did not pray over the one who died whilst having a debt or the one who acted unfaithfully regarding the war booty or the one who killed someone [all of this] does not mean that such a person is not a Muslim.  This, O my brother, is to educate as we explained before, this is something else.

If the Salafi narrations are not complementing each other or unanimous [mutawaatir] then it is not fitting that a manhaj is based upon a saying from an individual from the Salaf. Thereafter this manhaj is in opposition to what is known from the Salaf themselves: that a Muslim does not leave the fold of Islaam simply by committing an act of disobedience or an innovation or a sin which he perpetrates. So when we find someone who differed with this principle we go back to explaining it as I just mentioned to you, that it is to reprimand and discipline/educate.

We have [an example] in Imaam Bukhaari, and what will explain to you what Imaam Bukhaari was? [i.e., how great a scholar he truly was] Some of the scholars of hadith left Imaam Bukhaari and would not narrate from him, why? Because Imaam Bukhaari differentiated between the one who says the Quraan is created–[for he regarded the one who said this as being] misguided, an innovator, a disbeliever, according to the terminology the scholars have used concerning such people–and the one who said, ‘My pronunciation of the Quraan is created.”

Imaam Ahmad stated that the one who said this statement, i.e., that my pronunciation of the Quraan is created, is a Jahmee, and based upon this ruling some of the people who came after Imaam Ahmad ruled that Imaam Bukhaari is not to be taken from because he has made a statement of the Jahmees. The Jahmiyyah do not say that only one’s pronunciation of the Quraan is created, they [in fact] say that the Quraan is not the Speech of Allaah but is just another part of Allaah’s creation.

So what is then said about [Imaam] al-Bukhaari who made the statement, ‘My pronunciation of the Quraan is created?’ and [what is said about] Imaam Ahmad who said that whoever makes that statement is a Jahmi?

It is not possible for us to reconcile between both issues except by interpreting it correctly in a way which corresponds to the principles … and before I continue, I think along with me, you [do] differentiate between the one who says the Quraan is created and the one who says that his pronunciation of the Quraan is created, don’t you?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: So, how will we answer the statement of Imaam Ahmad that whoever says my pronunciation of the Quraan is created is a Jahmi? How do we answer this statement?

There is no answer except for what I mentioned to you, that it was to warn the Muslims from saying something which the people of innovation and misguidance, i.e., the Jahmiyyah, will take as a means [of calling the people to their falsehood]. So maybe someone, to try to make those around him fall into a problem they will have no way of escaping from, will say, ‘My pronunciation of the Quraan is created,’ but who [really] intends [that] the Quraan itself [is created] when he says that, but it is not necessary that everyone who says this statement intends that same evil meaning.

So now, Imaam Bukhaari has no need for anyone to claim that he is pure–for Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has shown him to be pure, since [right] after the Noble Quraan, Allaah made all of his book [i.e., Sahih Bukhari] accepted amongst the generality of Muslims despite the differences amongst those Muslims.

Thus, when he [i.e., Imaam Bukhaari] said, ‘My pronunciation of the Quraan is created,’ he meant something correct by it [and not the evil meaning intended by the innovators], but Imaam Ahmad feared [the outcome of this] and so said, ‘Whoever says that is such and such,’ to warn [the people] and not by way of believing that everyone who says that is truly a Jahmi, no.

For this reason when we find a ruling in the statements of some of the Salaf that whoever falls into innovation then he is an innovator it is to rebuke and not by way of believing [that everyone who does so is an innovator].

 

See here for the last part.

Asking For Allaah’s Mercy For Those who Fell into Innovations Connected to Aqidah | 3 | Practising Youth Falling into Innovations Themselves Without Even Realising, Slow Down


 

For this reason I say that one of the onerous mistakes of today is that the practising youth, the ones who think that they are clinging to the Book and the Sunnah, [actually] oppose the Book and the Sunnah without even realising it. And as a result, I have the right to, based upon their madhhab, call them innovators, because they have opposed the Book and the Sunnah–but I will not go against my madhhab [and call them innovators when the proof has not been established against them].

The foundation concerning these people [i.e., the youth mentioned above] is that they are Muslims and that they didn’t intend to commit any innovations and that they do not haughtily reject the truth and nor do they reject the evidence and proof. For this reason we say they wanted what was correct but made a mistake.

When we come to realise this reality we will be saved from a lot of the difficult issues of this time. One of them is the Jamaa’ah Al-Takfeer wal-Hijrah which used to be in Egypt and which had spread some of its ideology to Syria when I used to be there, then it reached here too.

We used to have some brothers on the Salafi methodology, the Book and the Sunnah, who were influenced by their false claims and who [as a result] stopped praying in congregation in the mosque, in fact, they stopped praying Jumu’ah [in the mosque] too. They would pray in their areas and houses, until the time we sat with them.

We held three sittings. The first was between maghrib and ishaa, [after this meeting] they refrained from praying behind us, i.e., from praying behind us Salafis, and I don’t want to just say myself … they used to say, ‘We rely on your books,’ but they still wouldn’t pray behind me, why? Because they [i.e., the Salafis] do not call those Muslims who they call disbelievers, to be disbelievers. So this was the first sitting.

The second was in their own house and it continued to midnight, but the glad tidings of their responding to the true call started to show, walhamdulillaah, such that we made the call to prayer and stood to pray and we prayed there just before midnight and they prayed behind us. This was the second sitting.

As for the third, then it continued from after ishaa prayer up until the adhaan of fajr, one [continual] sitting. And it was, alhamdulillaah, the death knell [of their false ideology]–to this day they are with us, and about twelve years have passed since this event, walhamdulillaah.

So they were only doubts that came over them due to their lack of understanding of the Book and the Sunnah. And maybe you know, O brother Khaalid, that understanding the Book and the Sunnah is not something easy [to achieve] today after we have inherited numerous madhhabs and [split into] very many groups in [issues] of creed [aqidah] and in Islamic jurisprudence [fiqh].

So the beginner student of knowledge cannot dive into this ocean of differences except after a very long, prolonged time of study in what today is called comparative fiqh [fiqh al-muqaarin] and a study of the proofs of the differing sides in usool and furoo, and in reality, [like I said] this, firstly, requires a long lifetime, and the tawfiq of the Lord of the Worlds, secondly, until Allaah will make true the Muslim’s supplication which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم made it a sunnah for him to say, which he would say as part of the supplications uttered during the night prayer, ‘O Allaah! Guide me concerning that which they differed in over the truth with Your Permission! Indeed, You guide whoever You want to [guide] to the Straight Path.’

For this reason, I advise our youth of today being brought up on the Book and the Sunnah to slow down and to be more reflective/patient and not to issue rulings which they base upon what is [just] apparent from the texts, because it is not for a Muslim to go by every [seemingly] apparent thing, for if not then in terms of knowledge he will live a life of chaos which has no end.

I think you know that the closest of the madhhabs to the Book and the Sunnah is the Ahlul-Hadith, and you also know that the Ahlul-Hadith relied on the narrating of the innovators if they were trustworthy, truthful and great memorisers. The meaning of this is that they did not include them amongst the disbelievers and neither did they include them amongst those for whom mercy is not sought.

Rather, you know that some of the Imaams who are followed today and whose being a Muslim no true Muslim scholar doubts, and not only [do they not doubt that those Imaams are Muslims] but [in fact they affirm that] they are scholars of excellence, yet along with that [these Imaams who are followed] may oppose the Book and the Sunnah and the Salaf as-Saalih in more than one issue.

By that I mean, for example, An-Nu’maan ibn Thaabit, Abu Hanifah, may Allaah have mercy on him, who used to say that eemaan does not increase or decrease and who used to say that it is not allowed for a Muslim to say, ‘I am a believer, ‘inshaa Allaah,’’ and that whoever does say, ‘inshaa Allaah’ [in that phrase] then he is not a Muslim. There is no doubt that this saying [of Imaam Abu Hanifah, may Allaah have mercy on him] is an innovation in the religion, because it opposes the Book and the Sunnah, but he didn’t intend to commit an innovation, he wanted the truth but made a mistake.

For this reason, opening this door of doubting the scholars of the Muslims whether they be from the Salaf or those who came later [khalaf] is an opposition to what the Muslims are upon. And our Lord, the Mighty and Majestic says in the Noble Quraan, “And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers–We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.” Nisaa 4:115


See part four here.

The Shaikh’s Opinion About Those Who Do Not Ask For Allaah’s Mercy [e.g., by Saying, ‘May Allaah have mercy on so and so,’] For Those who Fell into Innovations Connected to Aqidah | 2 |


 

Thereafter, my brother, may Allaah bless you, these are just claims that the Salaf would not pray over the generality of innovators, or over all innovators, this is just a claim which is present in the minds of some good people who deal with issues based on zealousness and emotion that is not coupled with sound knowledge, [sound knowledge which is] based upon, ‘Allaah said … Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said.’

And I presented a reality to you which no two will differ over, which is that there is either a Muslim or a non-Muslim.  So the Muslim, whatever his state, is prayed over and inherits and is inherited from, is washed, shrouded and buried in the graveyard of the Muslims, and if he is not a Muslim … he is buried in the graveyard of the non-Muslims. We do not have an in-between.

But if a certain worshipper or a certain scholar does not pray over a certain Muslim, then that does not mean that praying over that Muslim is not permissible, it only means that he is aiming at some wisdom which may not by realised without that [action].

Like the hadiths which you must remember some of, where the Prophet عليه السلام said, ‘Pray over your companion.’ The Prophet never prayed over him.

Would you say that the Prophet not praying over a Muslim is more important or a Salafi scholar refusing to pray over a Muslim? Tell me, what is more important?

Questioner: The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم leaving [praying over a Muslim].

Al-Albaani: Good. So if the Prophet’s abstention from praying over a Muslim does not show that it is not permissible to pray over him, then it is even more correct that the abstention of a scholar from the Salaf from praying over an innovating Muslim does not show that he is not prayed over.

Thereafter, even if it did show that he is not prayed over, does that mean that supplications of mercy and forgiveness are not made for him, as long as we believe that he is a Muslim?

So, in short, the abstention of some of the Salaf from praying over some of the Muslims due to an innovation does not negate the legitimacy of praying over every Muslim because that [action of the Salaf] was to reprimand and chastise those people like him, as the Prophet عليه السلام did regarding the one he didn’t pray over and whose only sin was that he died whilst having a debt to clear, and the one who acted unfaithfully regarding war booty and so on.

Thus, this abstention, i.e., the abstention of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is more important than the abstention of some of the Salaf, and this and that [i.e., the abstention of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Salaf] do not prove that it is not permissible to pray over the Muslim innovator.

At this point something has to be researched/discussed: we have to know who an innovator is, exactly like we must understand who a disbeliever is. So here the question that presents itself, as they say these days, is: does everyone who falls into disbelief have [the ruling of] disbelief applied to him?[/Is everyone who falls into disbelief declared a disbeliever?], likewise, is everyone who falls into an innovation declared an innovator? Or is it not like that?

If the answer is that it is not like that then we can continue this topic, and if the answer is obscure then it must be clarified. I will repeat the question with some detail.

What is an innovation? It is a newly-invented matter which is in opposition to the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and through which the person performing it wants to get closer to Allaah, the Blessed and Most High.

So is everyone who innovates an innovation an innovator?

I want to hear the answer in short, ‘No,’ [or] ‘Of course he is.’

Questioner: No.

Al-Albaani: So who is an innovator?

Questioner: The one whom the proof has been established against yet after that he still persists in his innovation?

Al-Albaani: Good. So these people [mentioned in the question] whom they say mercy should not be asked for: has the proof been established against them?

Allaah knows best.

I personally say Allaah knows best. As for you, what do you say … personally?

Questioner: The same answer as you, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: May Allaah reward you with good. So, what is the foundation of these people, Islaam or disbelief?

Questioner: Islaam.

Al-Albaani: Okay. Thus, the principle is that mercy is sought for them, isn’t that so?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Thus the issue is over.

So it is not allowed for us to build a fifth madhhab and say, ‘It is not permissible to ask for mercy for so and so and so and so,’ from the common folk of the Muslims, let alone their elite, let alone their scholars, for two reasons, and this is a summary of what has preceded:

  • The first reason: is that they are Muslims.
  • The second reason: is that if they are innovators we do not know if the proof was established against them and they [thereafter] continued in their innovations and their misguidance …

 

See part three here.

The Shaikh’s Opinion About Those Who Do Not Ask For Allaah’s Mercy [e.g., by Saying, ‘May Allaah have mercy on so and so,’] For Those who Fell into Innovations Connected to Aqidah | 1 |



Questioner: What do you say, O Shaikh, about someone who says, ‘You do not ask for [Allaah’s] Mercy for those who opposed the Aqidah of the Salaf, like Al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr, Ibn Hazm, Ibn al-Jawzi and others, and those from this day and age like Sayyid Qutb and Hasan al-Banna,’ bearing in mind that you know what Al-Banna [has written] in his Memoirs and [what] Sayyid Qutb has in [his book], ‘In the Shade of the Quraan?’

Al-Albaani: We believe that mercy, or to be more precise, asking for mercy is permissible for every Muslim and impermissible for every non-Muslim. So the answer depends on what the person believes–[i.e.,] whoever thinks that these people and those like them who were named in the question are Muslims then the answer is known from what has preceded: that it is permissible for a person to supplicate for mercy and forgiveness for them.

And whoever thinks, Allaah forbid, that these Muslims who were mentioned in the question are not Muslims then it is not permissible to ask for mercy for them, because [asking for] mercy has been forbidden for the unbelievers. This is the answer regarding what was asked in the question.

Questioner: Theysay this based upon [their assumption] that the manhaj of the Salaf was that they would not ask for mercy for the people of innovation, and following on from that they regard these people who were mentioned in the question as being from the people of innovation, so it is from this angle that they do not ask for Allaah’s Mercy for them.

Al-Albaani: We now made a statement, [that] asking for Allaah’s Mercy is permissible for every Muslim and not permissible for a non-Muslim, is this statement correct or not?

Questioner: It’s correct.

Al-Albaani: If it is correct then the second question is not valid, and if it is not correct then the discussion can continue.

Are not those, who some of these name as being from the people of innovations, prayed over? Is the prayer of the Muslims not performed over them?

And from the aqidah of the Salaf which the khalaf inherited from the Salaf is that prayer is performed behind every righteous or sinful [Imaam] and it is [also] performed over every righteous and sinful person, as for the non-Muslim, then he is not prayed over.

So, these people who I do not think the second question applies to, are they prayed over or are they not prayed over?

I do not want to get into a debate unless I am forced to, so if the answer is that they are prayed over the topic is over and no tenable position remains for the second question, and if not, then the discussion is open and possible.

Questioner: Okay, the person who says they shouldn’t be prayed over, O Shaikh, does so based upon [their assumption] that they are from the people of innovation, so what is the answer to that?

Al-Albaani: What is the proof?

Questioner: He uses the Salaf as proof, for example, he will differentiate between sins and immorality [on one hand] and the people of innovation who innovate into the religion [on the other]. And the Salaf never used to pray over the people of innovation nor sit with them nor eat or drink with them, so it is from this angle that he says this thing.

Al-Albaani: You have digressed, so pay attention. What was the question?

Questioner: About praying over them?

Al-Albaani: No. And [indeed] you had to have digressed because you gave a long answer that was misplaced. The question was, ‘What is the proof?’ You mentioned a claim, and a claim is not proof. Who is the one who says that the Muslim who innovates is not prayed over? What is the proof?

Questioner: He doesn’t have any proof except, just … only … that he uses the action of the Salaf as proof.

Al-Albaani: Are the actions of the Salaf proof?

Questioner: This is what he says.

Al-Albaani: Okay. Where is the proof?

Questioner: He doesn’t mention any, but the statements in this regard are always general.

Al-Albaani: Okay, the Salaf, wouldn’t the Salaf boycott people for committing a certain sin or for a certain innovation, does this then mean that they declared them to be disbelievers?

Questioner: No.

Al-Albaani: So they judged that he was [still] a Muslim.

Questioner: Of course.

Al-Albaani: Okay, we do not have a middle way between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, i.e., we do not have a station between two stations as the Mu’tazilah do. [A person is either] a Muslim and so is treated as a Muslim, or a disbeliever and is treated as such.

Thereafter, my brother, may Allaah bless you, these are just claims, that the Salaf would not pray over the generality of innovators, or over all innovators, this is just a claim which is present in the minds of some good people who …

See part two here.

The Beginner Students of Knowledge who Try to Tower Over the Major Scholars


 

Questioner: I have found, and I ask Allaah to forgive me and I hope that my feeling is misplaced, but I’ve started to notice that some of the students of knowledge, young people, who generally, alhamdulillaah, are good, but you will see that he has studied for four or five years, just having started [studying] the science of hadith and you find that he tries to build himself up by opposing so and so, for example, he will disagree with Al-Albaani [in hadith], or in fiqh he will even oppose Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz or Uthaimeen, so this is a phenomenon which I fear, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: We are men and they are men!

Questioner: In fact they did say that! But someone replied to them, O Shaikh, and said, ‘They [i.e., the scholars] are men, and you are a Dajjaal [imposter].’ Because one time the issue [being discussed] was about a Companion, the discussion reached the Companions, he said, ‘They are men and we are men.’ So he [the other person] replied, ‘No, they were men and you are a Dajjaal.’

Al-Albaani: Allaahu Akbar!

Questioner: So this is something noted, now for a few days I’ve been having a discussion with a student of knowledge, may Allaah reward him with good, who is attentive in this regard, so one of the brothers said to me, ‘But he opposes Al-Albaani or differs with Al-Albaani,’ so the issue … ‘… and so and so opposes Shaikh Ibn Baaz and so and so differs with Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen.’

Al-Albaani: The love of fame will break one’s back.

Questioner: I liked this statement of yours …

Al-Albaani: This is a blight on the students in this age except for those who Allaah has protected, and how few they are.

Questioner: Laa hawla wa laa quwwata illaa billaah.

Al-Albaani: Allaah’s aid is sought, Allaah’s aid is sought.

The video:

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 599.

Boycotting Another Muslim | 12 | How to Deal with Someone who Has Left the Manhaj of the Salaf


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Questioner: How do you deal with or what is the ruling concerning someone who has left the manhaj of the Salaf as-Saalih from the people of knowledge or those other them, how do you deal with them and what is the ruling concerning them? Benefit us [by giving us an answer], may Allaah help you.

Al-Albaani: May Allaah bless you, it is fitting that this scholar or learner deals with the generality of Muslims on the basis of giving sincere advice, i.e., it is a must for him to always, as far as he is able, contact them personally or by phone or to write to them, [so he should] use any means he can by which he can offer some sincere advice and knowledge to these people.

And it is not fitting that just because of the occurrence of some difference in an aspect of knowledge that we make that a reason for one Muslim to distance himself from his Muslim brother.

I am totally convinced about what I am saying–with the condition that no stubbornness/obstinacy becomes apparent to me from the one who opposes our manhaj or call. If stubbornness does become apparent then what remains is [just] wasting time in contacting them, especially because a person’s abilities are limited and he cannot meet each and every individual in a town, let alone a country, let alone the world.

Thus, he must contact those people who are most likely to benefit from what he says, his communication with them, his friendship, his companionship, [those who will benefit] more than the others, so he starts as that poet said:

Copious, is knowledge, if thou seeketh it
Insufficient, is thy time, to acquire it

So start with the most important thing and then the next, [give precedence] to the most important thing and then the next in importance: this person [for example] has the propensity to understand you and respond to you more than that [other] person, so give him two portions of your time not one, there [could be] another person who deserves three portions and so on.

But if you can, do not cut off from this person who deserves one portion, only do so if his obstinacy becomes apparent to you, and obstinacy is disbelief so there is no point in wasting time with him.

And this is how the answer to the question will be; that those people who used to be on the Salafi way but who then affiliated themselves with the partisan way–it is not fitting that such a person be boycotted, rather we should follow up on him by giving him knowledge and reminding him and so on. Until the time we lose hope regarding him, Allaah forbid, and he becomes a part of the group of stubborn, obstinate ones, as he عليه السلام said, “No one in whose heart is an atom’s weight of pride will enter Paradise.” A man said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! What if a man likes his clothes to look good and his shoes to look good?’ He said, ‘Allaah is Beautiful and loves beauty. Pride means rejecting the truth and looking down on people.” Muslim no. 285

So when you feel that a person is rejecting the truth and is looking down upon you then free yourself of him, as for the others, then you have to be with them according to the limits of your ability.

And [saying] this much is sufficient, and all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of all the Worlds.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 581.

On Harshness | 13 | Slandering the Scholars of the Hijaaz and Accusing Them of Adulating Taaghuts [Evil Leaders]



Questioner: There are some youth in Holland and elsewhere, Salafis alhamdulillaah, we do not doubt their creed but they say vile things about some of the scholars, especially the scholars of the Hijaaz. They say, ‘We don’t trust them because some of them flatter taaghuts [evil leaders]’ is this correct, O Shaikh?

Al-Albaani: From what I myself hear directly and from those things I hear through others, like you just told me now, it appears to me that those who speak against the scholars and charge them with flattering taaghuts [evil leaders], [it appears to me that] these people who accuse the scholars of the present day are, without doubt, from the youth.

And we, in turn, cannot think ill of them, i.e., of their intent–but we do suspect their knowledge. So firstly, the shallowness of their knowledge and their scant acquaintance with correct Islamic fiqh and [secondly] with Islamic manners which the Muslim youth should have been brought and raised up on, it is this, with regret, which the present day and age’s generation of youth has been deprived of.

It is true that there now is an Islamic, as they say, awakening. But I say, firstly, that this awakening is in its early stages, it has not even reached half way yet, let alone its end. Secondly, that this awakening is an ideological and knowledge-based one which has not been accompanied by an awakening in manners.

For this reason we advise these youths to apply themselves eagerly to seeking knowledge and to do so sincerely for Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, firstly. And that they rectify/discipline themselves and teach themselves Islamic manners.

And if they do that, they will withhold their tongues from speaking ill of people in general, let alone speaking about the honour of the scholars who are the elite of this Ummah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 574.

On Harshness | 12 | Having Bigotry Towards Shaikhs


 

Questioner: There are some youth with us who initially used to feel comfortable with/go to one of the scholars and another group would feel comfortable with/go to a different one. Then the situation escalated until partisanship occurred, i.e., all of them became partisan to a scholar, such that they would start to have enmity and would not sit with each other?

Al-Albaani: Of course, this is not permitted in Islaam. We always say that there is no partisanship in Islaam. Islaam forbids this factionalism.

Because this person who clings to the opinion of a certain scholar and that other person who holds on to the opinion of a different scholar–neither this scholar nor that other one are infallible as the Prophets and Messengers were.

For this reason the Muslims should live upon mutual love and [by giving] advice one to another and not show partisanship to any person in the world, except one–and that is the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم.

The most a Muslim can do is to trust in a scholar, [trust] in his knowledge, and the fact that he is, for example, distant from the vanities of this world and from jobs in the government which very often are the cause in leading an employee to deviate from the knowledge which he calls the people to.

So when a Muslim sees that a scholar is more knowledgeable, has more taqwaa and so on than another, there is no objection to him taking the opinion of that scholar but without slandering the other one.

So it is [a must] for them to be … as is said, believers are sincere advisors, [they] advise one other, so when one of them sees that such and such a scholar is more knowledge than so and so, because he presents proofs and evidences and so on … so that they come together and do not be enemies.

The important thing is that partisanship has been forbidden in Islaam through the text of the Noble Quraan, because it leads to the division, hatred and enmity that I have mentioned. And Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, says, 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. Ruum 30:31-32

And in an authentic hadith in Muslim and others, [there occurs], “… do not hate each other, and do not desert [cut your relations with] one another.  And be brothers as Allaah ordered you to be …” or as he said عليه الصلاة والسلام.

So this is how the Muslims must live, especially under these regimes which try to turn them away from their religion and their manners.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 573.

On Harshness | 11 | Self-Conceited Student of Knowledge, how dare you issue a fatwaa?


 

So it is [a must] for him to actualise this aayah, “So ask the people of the message if you do not know.”

For the example of these people who are not from the people of knowledge or from those capable of passing verdicts and yet have the audacity to [actually] issue religious verdicts [fatwas] is like that of the man who the Prophet عليه السلام supplicated against by asking Allaah the Mighty and Majestic to destroy him because he passed a religious verdict which led to the death of an innocent Muslim soul.

You know this hadith which Abu Dawud reported in his Sunan, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم sent out an expedition where they fought, evening came and went and in the morning one of them got up after having had a wet dream, he also had a great many wounds on his body. He asked the people with him if they thought he had a concession not to take a bath from ritual impurity. They replied saying that he must take a bath, so he did but died.

When news of this reached Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم he supplicated against him [i.e., against the one who issued the verdict], saying, “They killed him, may Allaah kill them! Why did they not ask if they did not know? Verily, the cure for ignorance is to ask …” The student of knowledge must always and forever keep this hadith before his eyes so that he does not dare to deliver a religious verdict and so be afflicted with the same thing that the man whom the Prophet supplicated against was afflicted with, when he supplicated that Allaah the Blessed and Most High kill him.

And from what has preceded it comes to light that the bad consequences of being bold in giving fatwas affect the mufti firstly, and the one whom the ruling applies to, secondly.

Thus, once this meaning has established itself in the students of knowledge who have not attained familiarity with the Book and the Sunnah and [nor with] following up the statements of the Imaams and comparing them and choosing the strongest one amongst them, but [who have] only [learnt] how to say, ‘I think such and such … I understand it to be like this …’—then let these people free themselves from/avoid both of these calamities which I just pointed to: firstly, that they themselves fall into a mistake, and [secondly] that they cause others to err.

And that is [achieved] by asking the people of knowledge and after that it is not their responsibility as to whether the one who issued the fatwa was mistaken or not. Because if he is correct, then how excellent, and if he made a mistake then the sin is on the one who issued it–so instead of him bearing the responsibility himself because he gave a verdict without knowledge and [as a result also] embroiled [in the problem] the one he gave the verdict to, [a verdict] not based upon knowledge, let him leave that sin for someone else …

And this does not mean that our youth, in their asking the people of knowledge, do not try to seek information about one scholar or another–between a mere claimant to knowledge and a true scholar, between a scholar of a madhhab and those ignorant of the Book and the Sunnah, and this is another issue.

What is important is that he asks those in whose knowledge and religion he trusts, when he does so he will not fall into the problem which that person who gave the verdict that the injured Companion had to take a bath fell into, and because of his ignorance of the Sunnah, he did not give the [correct] fatwa that it was [in fact] permissible for him to perform tayammum because water was harmful to him. And it really did harm him and was the cause of his death.

So this is a statement [I’ve made] and maybe I’ve prolonged it but I hope that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic will give us the tawfiq to act upon beneficial knowledge and that He makes us aware of our own worth and that He does not make us from those who are self-conceited, for self-importance is a pitfall, there being no greater trap than it.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 181.

On Harshness | 10 | Thousands of Companions, and only two hundred scholars? And today? ‘I performed ijtihaad and came to the conclusion that …’


 

And I also see [it appropriate] that I mention that today we have been afflicted with the opposite of what we were put to test with in past generations. In the past we were afflicted with the rigidity of the scholars, let alone the students of knowledge, let alone the general masses, we were tested with the blind following of the madhhabs. And the Muslims continued in this rigidity for many a long generation.

Now there is a return, there is a blessed awakening to go back to the Book and the Sunnah, and there is no doubt that it has produced its ripe fruit—but now it’s the opposite of that [initial] affair that we complain about. We used to complain about rigidity but now we [must] complain about uninhibitedness [i.e., dashing ahead].

Everyone who hears a statement from the Book or the Sunnah …  not understanding anything from the Book and the Sunnah except a few phrases and words which he hears from some of the callers [daa’ees]–words which may be true and some of which may be incorrect … because of that [i.e., the few phrases he may have picked up, some of which are correct and some of which are not] he sees himself as having become a scholar, it being permissible [now] for him to say, ‘I think that … my opinion is that … I think that this statement is incorrect …’ and he interferes in every major and minor issue—all the while not being able to read a hadith correctly.

This [situation] has its dangers. And if the affair, and this is my personal opinion, if the affair hinges between following one of the four madhhabs and being rigid on it and between every Muslim becoming a claimant to knowledge and to ijtihaad, then there is no doubt that remaining upon what the forefathers were upon in following the madhhabs and discarding the opinions of the ignorant ones who have not studied any knowledge, is better. And this is by way of choosing the lesser of two evils.

A wise person or an author from Iraq made a very beautiful statement …, he said, “That I make ijtihaad and err is more beloved to me than for me to perform taqleed and be correct,” he said, “I only said, ‘… more beloved to me …’ and not that it is better because a mistake is not better than a correct answer.”

For this reason, we have to advise our brothers who share with us in the da’wah and in adopting the Book and the Sunnah not to be deceived by themselves or by some of the pieces of information that they have learnt from others and which were not [acquired] through their own personal study.

For in relation to others this opens up a door [leading to criticism] concerning us which we will have no way of answering; for they raise an objection saying that we permit those who, as they say here in Syria, ‘… cannot differentiate between a long stick and the [Arabic] letter alif [even though both are straight] …’

Without doubt, this is a fault attributed to the Salafi da’wah but there is [also] no doubt that the Salafi da’wah does not approve of the adoption of personal opinions emanating from people who are not students of knowledge, and who, even if they are, have not yet matured or become fully developed in knowledge.

For this reason, I recommend that these people do not become conceited by their own opinions and that they seek the assistance of the people of knowledge, for the Quraan, as you know, divided the people into two categories: a scholar and a non-scholar.

And the situation was like this in all of the past generations, especially the first, the most illuminated generation, that of the Prophet عليه السلام. So the people used to be of two categories [like we said], the scholar and the layman, and this is what Allaah the Mighty and Majestic referred to in His Saying, “So ask the people of the message if you do not know.” Nahl 16:43

Ibn al-Qayyim and others say that from amongst the Companions the scholars who would issue religious verdicts [fatwas] barely reached two hundred in number, two hundred scholars—they were not like the millions, maa shaa Allaah, of Muslims today where each one has an opinion to give, [saying], ‘I have an opinion that …’—[no,] the thousands upon thousands of other Companions would not have each one putting forward his opinion, but they would, rather, implement His Saying, the Most High, “So ask the people of the message if you do not know.”

And so based upon this aayah, it is obligatory to spread this reality among our Salafi youth and to cause them to live by it, such that they always and forever have before their eyes the fact that [if you are a scholar then] you perform ijtihaad and understand the Book and the Sunnah, and if you are not a scholar then it is not your obligation to say: ‘I think such and such …,’ ‘I performed ijtihaad and came to the conclusion that …,’ whether that be in declaring hadith to be authentic when you are not from the people [scholars] of Hadith, or whether it is in deriving a ruling and you are not from the faqeehs.

On Harshness | 9 | The truth in and of itself is already heavy enough on the people, so, “Be easy going and do not be harsh …”


 

And due to this, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم sent Mu’aadh ibn Jabal and Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, may Allaah be pleased with them both, to Yemen, he counselled them with the following, “Be easy going and do not be harsh, give glad tidings and do not put people off, cooperate and do not be divided.” [Muslim no. 4526, the Shaikh mentioned a shorter wording].

So all of this and what was mentioned before makes us pay heed to the fact that we should be forbearing and easy-going with the people.

And as I say on this occasion and how often I do say this: our call, walhamdulillaah, is the true call, and the people are heedless of the truth.

The truth in and of itself is heavy on the people, so it is enough of a burden on them that we call them to this truth which is [already] heavy on them.  The burden of the truth is enough for them [to try and handle]. And this is what should deter and prevent us from adding to this load on them by our use of a harsh manner in calling them to the truth.

For when harsh manners are added to the intensity of the truth and its burden upon the people … if calling the people [to the truth] is accompanied by the intensity of the truth and its burden on them–and this is something correct, then it is not befitting that we add another burden to this one–which is not correct, [for] then this second burden [i.e., harsh manners] will be a hindrance for the people from accepting this truth which is weighty in and of itself, as He the Most High said, “Indeed, We will cast upon you a heavy word.” Muzzammil 75:5

For this reason, part of what he عليه السلام said to Mu’aadh in the incident where he prolonged his recitation in the Ishaa prayer which led one of the Ansaar to cut off his prayer behind him, pray on his own and then go home, leaving the Jamaa’ah–so when this news reached Mu’aadh he was severe in his attack upon this Ansaari, such that he said about him, ‘He is a hypocrite.’

And Mu’aadh, may Allaah be pleased with him, made this statement based upon the general principle which Ibn Mas’ood mentioned in his long hadith reported in Sahih Muslim, ‘None would remain behind from the prayer in congregation except a hypocrite,’ and likewise there is another hadith [which mentions] that the person who is in the mosque and hears the call to prayer but then leaves is a hypocrite.

[So] Mu’aadh used this general principle [when making his statement] concerning that person, and he was mistaken in doing so.

Because that man did not leave the prayer due to him following [his] desires but rather due to an excuse he had which he clarified to the Prophet عليه السلام when he complained of Mu’adh to him.

So the Prophet عليه السلام sent for Mu’aadh as is known and he عليه السلام said to him, “Do you want to cause fitnah, O Mu’aadh? Do you want to cause fitnah, O Mu’aadh? Do you want to cause fitnah, O Mu’aadh? It is enough for you to recite, ‘By the sun and its brightness,’ ‘By the night as it envelops,’ and surahs like it and when one of you leads the people in prayer let him make it light,’ [Bukhaari and Muslim] to the end of the hadith.

So the point is that hardness and harshness harm the da’wah, and we, regretfully, notice about many of our brothers that every time the newer this person is to the da’wah the rougher he is in it, because he thinks that harshness helps the da’wah, whereas the reality is that it harms it and in this regard His Saying, the Mighty and Majestic, is enough for you, “And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you.” Aali-Imraan 3:159

PDF: On Boycotting


Here is the PDF version of all the separate posts in one place.  If you want to save it, right click on the link and go to ‘Save Link/Target As’:

Boycotting.

On Harshness | 8 | Be Gentle


 

Questioner: What do you think about giving some general advice, O Shaikh, to the callers, namely, an advice about how to call to the establishment of a correct scholarly, methodology in Jordan?

Al-Albaani: Before everything, it is obligatory on our brothers who are eager to follow the Book and the Sunnah to study it in a precise, scholarly manner, with perception and the correct understanding, and [careful] deliberation from basing [one’s knowledge] on the personal opinions of those who regard themselves as having become from the students of this noble pursuit.

And in addition to studying this knowledge, it is also obligatory that every student be keen to act upon what he has learnt, so that his knowledge not be a proof against him on one hand, and so that Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, benefits the people through his knowledge [on the other].

Thereafter it is fitting that a third point be noted, which is that when we want to call the people to the guidance and light that He has bestowed upon us it is obligatory that we be gentle and not severe/harsh with them and that we do not make it appear to them as though we are more special than them due to this knowledge.

We have to regard all of the people who we see as being far from the prophetic guidance صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم as being ill. And there is no doubt that the non-physical illness sickness is more severe and harmful than the bodily one.

And if a medical doctor is supposed to treat his patients with kindness, such that many of them say that some patients become better just by hearing kind words from their doctor, then how much more so and how much more deserving it is that the student of knowledge, who has undertaken [the responsibility of] directing and guiding the people to following the Sunnah and following what the Righteous Predecessors were upon, be gentle in calling them, soft when dealing with them.

And if the Prophet صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم reproached [the noble] lady Aishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, when she was stern when returning the greeting to that Jew who had visited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم and who wickedly said when giving salaam, ‘As-Saam alaikum,’ [i.e., death be upon you]. So his salaam was not clear[ly recognisable] as being the salaam said by the Muslims and nor was it clear that it was a supplication for death upon the Chief of the Messengers.  The Jew did not say it clearly and openly, and naturally, he would not have dared to have addressed the Prophet عليه السلام when the state [i.e., power] was his at that time, by saying, ‘As-Saam alaikum,’ [openly].

But due to the ignominy and the spite and the disbelief in the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that was in the Jew’s heart, he did not give the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as-salaam which is one of the Names of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, as occurs in an authentic hadith, but [instead] he mumbled it and said, ‘As-Saam alaikum.’ And it goes without saying that that would not be hidden from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم, so he عليه السلام, replied to him briefly, extremely concisely by saying, ‘Wa alaikum,’ [‘… and upon you …’].

As for the [noble] lady Aishah, who was behind the hijab, no sooner had she heard this twisted phrase coming from that Jew than she said, ‘And upon you be death and curses and the Anger [of Allaah], [you] brothers of apes and pigs!’  So when the Jew left, the Prophet عليه السلام said, ‘What is this, O Aaishah?’ She said, ‘O Prophet of Allaah! Didn’t you hear what he said?’ He said to her, ‘Didn’t you hear what I said, O Aaishah?’–and here is the point being proven–‘There is no gentleness in a thing but it adorns it, and it is not removed from something but it mars it.’ Bukhari no. 6602

So if the Prophet عليه السلام was like this with someone who spoke to that Jew in that stern way, i.e., Aaishah may Allaah be pleased with her–and she had the right to because she understood from the Jew’s statement that he was supplicating for death upon the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم–what then should our stance be towards our brothers who at the very least share with us in the two Shahaadahs?

There is no doubt that we must be kind and not harsh with them.