The Albaani Site

Translation from the Works of the Reviver of this Century

Tag: albaani

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


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

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

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

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

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

As-Saheehah, 4/42-43.

Fathers whose Children will Intercede for Them on the Day of Judgement


Questioner: What kind of intercession is it that a child will do for his father when his father was someone who had given an aqiqah on behalf of that child? [The Aqiqah being the Sunnah of sacrificing two sheep for the new-born boy and one for the girl]

Al-Albaani: It is known in many hadiths that on the Day of Resurrection there will be young children standing at the gate of Paradise, crying and asking for their fathers. So Allaah the Blessed and Most High will send Jibreel عليه السلام to ask them why they are crying–even though He the Blessed and Most High knows better about them–so Jibreel عليه السلام will ask them and they will reply, saying, ‘We will not enter Paradise except that our fathers are with us.’ So the Lord of the Worlds will give permission to them and their fathers to enter Paradise.

So this type of intercession, i.e., hastening entry into Paradise, is what those fathers who offered aqiqah’s on behalf of their children, i.e., sacrificed on their behalf when they were born, deserve.

Al-Huda wan-Noor, no. 16.

The video:

How Many Pairs of Scales Will There Be on the Day of Judgement?


 

Questioner: The Most High said, “And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection,” [Anbiyaa 21:47], so will the scales on the Day of Resurrection be a single pair or a number of scales?

Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that it is not allowed to alter or replace the wording of the Quraan. So as long as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has used the word, ‘[pairs of] scales’ then it is ‘[pairs of] scales,’ [i.e., as opposed to a single pair of scales].

And there is nothing stopping these pairs of scales being different as we know they are from the Unseen, and it is not fitting that we picture them to be a specific pair of scales, how can we when the scales found in this world now have become numerous and of many variations. So it is all the more so that on the Day of Resurrection there will be multiple/various pairs of scales.

So as long as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has mentioned scales in the plural form in such Quranic wording, I hold it to be a denial of the [correct] meaning for [the term] ‘pairs of scales’ to be explained to mean ‘a pair of scales,’ and this is not from the way of the Salaf.

Fataawaa Jeddah, 36.

Are There People in Paradise or the Fire Now?


 

Questioner: O Utsaadh! Are there people who have now entered Paradise or people who have entered the Fire? Like the aayah in Surah Yaa Seen, “It was said to him, ‘Enter Paradise.’” [Yaa Seen 36:26]

Al-Albaani: This is about what will be. As for now, there is nothing but the life of al-Barzakh. Entering Paradise or the Fire is appointed at the Reckoning … [at] the resurrection on the Day of Resurrection.

Questioner: Even the martyrs and Prophets?

Al-Albaani: All of them. But their souls are in a specific state of bliss as he عليه السلام said, “The souls of the martyrs are in the crops of green birds, eating from the fruits of Paradise,” and likewise, “The souls of the believers are in the bellies of green birds, eating from the fruits of Paradise.” So this bliss is that of the souls, as for the bliss of the body and soul together and likewise the torment [of them both together], that will not be except after the resurrection.

Questioner: Okay, O Ustaadh! What we understood, according to our intellect, is that when a person is living, his soul and body are interconnected …, when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic says, “Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive …” [Aali-Imraan 3:169] what I mean is [i.e., what I understand from the aayah is], ‘Nay, they are alive …’ i.e., alive as in the soul is in the body, connected.

Al-Albaani: This is something well-known which does not need to be asked about, the Prophet explained it for you and gave you the answer and I mentioned it to you earlier … the souls of the martyrs are in the crops of green birds, what does this mean? That firstly, the life of a martyr is commensurate with his rank before Allaah and, secondly, [at the same time it is also commensurate] with his existence in barzakh.

Life differs.  Life in Barzakh differs from life in this world, and life in the Hereafter differs from both of those forms of life together, life in the Hereafter is different from life in al-Barzakh and life in this world too.

For this reason it is not permissible for a person to employ analogical reasoning [qiyas] … making an analogy of that which is Unseen based upon that which is, such that you say, ‘We don’t know life except in this manner!’

Don’t use this life which you are familiar with to make an analogy of that life which you are not acquainted with; especially when some texts have been related which totally clarify for you the fact that the life of martyrs which our Lord the Mighty and Majestic affirmed in the Quraan, saying, “Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, receiving provision …” … what is their provision?

It is not [various] dishes like those we have, their provision is that they eat by way of what that green bird eats, this is the provision [being referred to], the hadith explains the Quraan.

Questioner: When the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام saw Paradise and the Fire and found those who were being punished therein and those who were in bliss, how is that then?

Al-Albaani: Yes, the [differing] states that the Companions of Paradise and those of the Fire will be in [i.e., after Barzakh, on the Day of Judegement] was unveiled to him–this is the true unveiling [kashf] which the Sufis have stolen and attributed to themselves; it [i.e., such kashf] is only for the Prophets and Messengers.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 28.

The video:

Is Paradise Forbidden for a Child born of Fornication?


Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “No one who is disobedient to his parents, no one who reminds others of his favours, no drunkard, and no fornicator [lit: ‘son of fornication’] will enter Paradise.” Reported by Nisaa’i and others.

The Imaam said, “His saying, ‘… and no son of fornication will enter Paradise …’ is not to be taken upon its apparent meaning, rather what is meant is the person who fornicates such that it becomes his overwhelming characteristic, and so as a result of that he deserves to be attributed to it, and thus it is said of him, ‘He is the son of fornication,’ just as those who are addicted/love the dunyaa are attributed to it, it being said of them, ‘Sons of the world,’ due to their knowledge and their addiction/love of it, and just as the traveller is called, ‘Son of the road,’ [cf: Surah Baqarah 2:177, ‘ابن السبيل’].

So, ‘the son of fornication,’ is like these expressions, it is said of the one who is given to fornication such that its habituality has become attributed to him, and fornication has become his overwhelming characteristic, such a person is the one referred to in his saying, ‘… and no son of fornication will enter Paradise …’

The child who is born out of fornication and who himself is not a fornicator is not what is meant here … and I benefitted by acquiring this meaning from the speech of Ibn Ja’far at-Tahaawi, may Allaah have mercy on him, and his explanation of this hadith.

And Allaah knows best.

As-Saheehah, 2/280-283.

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


Following on from the previous post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in ending I say:

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

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

Questioner: Wa alaikum salaam wa rahmatullaah. In conclusion …

Al-Albaani: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 805.

Al-Albaani and the False Prophet


The Shaikh said, “Not too long ago I had a meeting with a man who claimed that he was the Mahdi. So we met and I put this frank question to him:

“Are you the Mahdi meaning a Muslim who is rightly guided, a righteous Muslim, or are you ‘the’ Mahdi about whose arrival we have been given glad tidings?”

He said, “No. I am the Mahdi about whose coming glad tidings have been mentioned in the hadiths.” Then he started to speak.

I wanted to know how best to tackle him, so I listened to him and then he said, “Some of the hadiths regarding the Mahdi are authentic and others are weak.” This was sound.

After he finished, I said, “Can I ask you a question?”

He said, “Please do [tafaddal].”

I said, “If you could please give us some of the authentic and weak hadiths you just alluded to.”

So the miskeen was at his wit’s end and did not know what to say. He twisted and turned, saying what he had said before, until finally he said, “Tonight, I will not speak about these hadiths.”

Interjector: Allaahu Akbar!

Al-Albaani: He didn’t want to speak. So I said, “Why? Do you think this discussion is going to be according to how you want it? I asked you a question, you have to answer. You claim to be the Mahdi … the one who is a guide for the people, amongst the people are scholars and ignorant folk, righteous people and sinners–the real [Imaam] Mahdi is supposed to bear [the responsibility of guiding] the people not the other way round, with the people bearing [the responsibility of guiding] him. Because the Mahdi is all good, he is full of knowledge and so on. For this reason, I ask that you present us with some of the authentic and weak hadiths [that you alluded to].”

He said, “Tomorrow, I will bring them.”

I said, “No. I will not continue until tomorrow, and who can guarantee for himself that he will live until tomorrow?”

[Again] he started to go this way and that.

At the end I said to him, “Okay! We will give up half of the request but not the other. I asked you to bring some authentic and weak hadiths, I will let you off regarding the weak: bring some of the authentic ones.”

But he had nothing, and if he had mentioned any, they would obviously have been a proof against him. He was a man from whose appearance you wouldn’t judge him to be a Muslim: clean-shaven, head uncovered, obese, and he couldn’t recite an aayah correctly as it had been revealed by Allaah.

And the strange thing was that this miskeen thought that he was a Messenger from Allaah.

Interjector: His brother followed him.

Al-Albaani: Sorry?

Interjector: The person who followed him was his brother.

Al-Albaani: Right, his brother followed him. So he said that he was a messenger from Allaah but not a prophet. Look at the miguidance?! He had made a plan so that he could deceive the people: you know the clear hadiths, “There is no prophet after me …” but because of his ignorance it seems as though he did not picture there to be a hadith which says, “There is no messenger after me,” and that is why he claimed to be a messenger but not a prophet.

So I said to him, “You say you are a messenger …” and he said that Allaah revealed the Quraan to him afresh yet along with that he couldn’t even read it properly, making clear mistakes when reading it, reading a dammah in the place of a fathah and a fathah in the place of a dammah and so on.

Interjector: Had he memorised the Quraan?

Al-Albaani: No … only some aayahs. He brought a mushaf, and the mushaf has all the diacritical marks yet along with that he still made mistakes. So I said to him, “How can revelation have come down upon you … if we were to read the Quraan and make a mistake there would be nothing strange about that because it was not revealed to us afresh: [but] how can you make mistakes when reading it [since you claim it was revealed to you all over again]?”

I asked him some questions to uncover his ignorance and misguidance, saying, “What do you believe, are the messengers infallible or not?”

He said, “Infallible in some things and not others.”

I said, “Clarify.”

He said, “Infallible in their delivery of the message and not infallible in what is besides that.”

I said, “Do you have anything else you want to add?”

He said, “No.”

So I said, “So [according to what you just said], it is possible that they can steal, it is possible that they can fornicate and so on.”

Naturally, this was a strong doubt [I raised concerning his futile definition, a definition which, once this doubt was raised] he did not apply to himself, but instead, as was his habit, he fled from it.

I asked him [moving the argument along since he couldn’t answer the previous one], “So a messenger is infallible in delivering the message?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Okay, but just an hour ago you [in fact] made it clear that you are not infallible: the Quraan has been sent down to you again [as you claim] but you couldn’t read it as it has been sent to you, afresh. So this is a proof that you are not infallible and following on from that, you are not a messenger as you claim.”

The debate continued like this between me and him until finally I said to him, “Is there a difference between a messenger and a prophet?” I wanted to see what the difference [in his eyes] was since he had confined himself to being a messenger and not a prophet.

He said, “There is a difference but no-one except Allaah knows it .”

I said, “Okay. You’re a messenger and not a prophet?”

He said, “Yes.”

So I said, “That is a proof that you know a messenger differs from a prophet: so how does this go with your statement that, ‘No-one knows the difference except Allaah?’”

In summary, the group of people present detected his misguidance and his ignorance of the Sharee’ah.

And subhaanallaah! His brother … in the end I admonished both of them, saying to his brother, “Fear Allaah. The least that can be said about your brother is that the issue has become obscure to him [such that he sees himself to be correct] and that he is a person imagining things and is deluded and so on. Don’t you see how he is asked questions but cannot answer them?”

And I challenged them, saying, “What do you know about the sharee’ah? Do you know how the Prophet used to pray? I challenge you now. Stand and pray.”

He said, “I don’t want to pray.”

… during the debate between me and him, this person, what was his name, Khaleel?

Interjector: Khaleel … Khaleel is his brother’s name.

Al-Albaani: When I was debating with the self-professed Mahdi, his brother would interrupt. [I would say to him], ‘Yaa akhi, this is not the way to debate. I’m speaking to your brother why are you interfering? If your brother allows you to speak I have no objection but I’m only one person and can only speak to either you or him …” because there was a chair here and there and his brother was next to me. “So I speak with him one time and the other with you … who am I supposed to talk to.” In order to defend his brother’s mistake [the claimant to prophethood] said, “I give him permission to speak.”

So I said, “Then we will leave you [i.e., the false Mahdi] now and speak to your brother. When we asked him [i.e., your brother, the false Mahdi] to get up and pray … who didn’t want to? [He didn’t], your brother, the ‘Mahdi.’ So we said okay.

[Now], you’re his brother–you stand and pray so we can see.’”

He said, “No. Not until he [my brother, the ‘Mahdi’] gives me permission.”

[I said], “He [already] has given you permission … didn’t he say that he gives you permission to say or do anything?”

In summary, their ignorance has blinded their hearts.

You know the [false] Mahdi whose name is Ghulaam Ahmad al-Qadiyani, he was a man who had knowledge, a complete Dajjaal with knowledge, but these miskeens are ignorant people who don’t know a thing from the Sharee’ah and don’t [even] know how to read the Quraan … they don’t know the language … they don’t know anything.”

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 28.

Are the Aayahs About Allaah’s Attributes Regarded as Being from the Precise or Unspecific Aayahs [Muhkamaat and Mutashaabihaat]?


 

Questioner: A questioner is asking whether the aayahs and hadiths that talk about Allaah’s Attributes are from the precise [muhkamaat] aayahs or hadiths] or the unspecific ones [mutashaabihaat, cf: Surah Aali-Imraan 3:7] … as the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said …

Al-Albaani: From one angle, namely in that which is connected to the exact nature [i.e., the ‘how?’] of those Attributes, they are from the unspecific aayahs [al-mutashaabihaat, but] from the other angle they are not [regarded as being from the unspecific ones but rather are from the precise [muhkamaat] aayahs] in that they have a clear meaning.

As we just said now that the saying of the Salaf, ‘Pass them on/relay them as they have come,’ i.e., as they are understood in the Arabic language and we mentioned the example of [Imaam] Maalik about that previously too. So in this sense they are not from the unspecific [aayahs], i.e., in that they have a [linguistic] meaning well-known in the Arabic language.

But as regards the exact nature [of those Attributes they talk about] then they are regarded as being from the unspecific aayahs [mutashaabihaat], because it is not possible for us to know the exact nature [i.e., the ‘how?’] of Allaah’s Dhaat, and following on from that it is not possible for us to know the exact nature of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic’s, Attributes either.

For this reason some of the Imaams of Hadith, like Abu Bakr al-Khateeb [al-Baghdaadi], author of the well-known [encyclopaedia], ‘The History of Baghdaad,’ [said that] the same is said concerning the Attributes as is said concerning [Allaah’s] Esssence/Dhaat, both in negating and affirming, that which is said concerning the Esssence/Dhaat is said concerning the Attributes.

So just as we affirm [Allaah’s] Essence/Dhaat [i.e., His very existence] and we do not deny it–for such a denial is total and utter rejection [of Allaah]–then we say the same about [Allaah’s] Attributes: we affirm them and do not negate them, but just as we do not ask exactly ‘how?’ His Essence/Dhaat is [but still affirm it], then in the same way we do not ask ‘how?’ His Attributes are [but still affirm them].

This is the answer to the question.

789 | Fatwaawaa Imaraat, 2.

The video:

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


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

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

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

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

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

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

Questioner: This is present among the Qutubis.

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

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

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

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

Al-Huda wan-Noor, 188.

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


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

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

What is your opinion about these rules, O Shaikh?

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

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

He was asked why …

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

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

So ‘the scholar’ said that this is disbelief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 778.

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.