Shaikh al-Albaani

Translations From His Works

Tag: sayyid qutb

Al-Albaani on Dealing Gently With The People When They Are Wrong–They Are Not as Bad as Pharaoh | 1 |


Questioner: It’s as though in his books Sayyid Qutb declares communities to be disbelievers because they don’t believe in Haakimiyyah, and he also doesn’t differentiate between minor disbelief and major, and the innovations which take place around graves and the supplications to other than Allaah are not of interest to him, and other things [too], he only talks about Haakimiyyah.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Questioner: And some people make excuses for him, so what is his excuse?

Al-Albaani: By Allaah, O Ustaadh, I hold that it is better for us that we busy ourselves with those who are alive instead of those who are dead, this is the first thing.

Secondly, I said to our brother Dr. Rabee that Sayyid Qutb is a man who is not a scholar, and that he is one of those Egyptian writers who were not nurtured on knowledge, correct knowledge.

But it seems that he had a flowing pen, and perhaps in addition to that he, like many of today’s youth, had an unruly Islamic compassion, but they, as is said:

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

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

So his books, as Dr. [Rabee’ al-Madkhali] may Allaah reward him with good has explained, are full of mistakes in terms of knowledge, some of them related to ’aqidah and some to fiqh.

So when I say that it is sufficient for us to busy ourselves with those who are alive instead of those who have passed away, I mean that we should not set up enmity between ourselves and a certain person, but only between us and his da’wah, and this is especially so after he has passed away and gone on to Allaah’s Forgiveness, inshaa Allaah, and His Mercy. This is from one angle.

And I said to Dr. [Rabee’], and I remain upon this, and I think that a lot of our brothers from the students of knowledge and our Shaikhs are [also in agreement] on this, that the truth, in and of itself, is heavy on the general people except for those whom Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, wills [for it not to be as such]:

“Indeed, We will cast upon you a heavy word.” [Muzzammil 73:5]

So when hardness and harshness is added to the da’wah and its heaviness upon the people, as we mentioned–then two types of hardness and harshness have come together, and that will be a cause which will repel people from the true call, whereas the purpose of da’wah was to draw them to it.

And there is not a single student of knowledge from us except that he remembers the aayahs in the Noble Quraan and many of the Messenger’s hadiths, عليه الصلاة والسلام, which exhort kindness and gentleness, the aayahs [in this regard] are well-known and we do not need to be reminded of them, like the aayah in which Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, ordered Moosaa عليه السلام and his brother Haaroon, saying:

“Go, both of you, to Pharaoh. Indeed, he has transgressed. And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear [Allaah].” [Taa Haa 20:43-44]

And I do not believe that someone who bears witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allaah and that Muhammad is Allaah’s Messenger and who professes this testimony, [and while we do leave] his [final] reckoning with Allaah, there is not a single person from us who will imagine that however deviated he is in his call, especially when he has not used hardness or harshness in his call with those who he is calling towards his da’wah, however deviated it is from the truth, [not a single person from us will imagine that] his situation will reach an atom’s weight in comparison to this Pharaoh to whom Moosaa and Haaroon were sent.

Despite that, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic ordered these two noble Prophets and chosen Messengers to speak gently to the greatest transgressor on the face of the earth [a level of transgression which was shown] when he [i.e., Pharaoh] said:

“Saying, ‘I am your lord, the most high.’” [Naazi’aat 79:24]

Despite that Allaah said:

“Go, both of you, to Pharaoh. Indeed, he has transgressed. And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear [Allaah].” [Taa Haa 20:43-44]

So I believe that Sayyid Qutb’s condition doesn’t reach that of Pharaoh at all, so it is his present followers who are intended when refuting him because he has [now] gone with all of his open and hidden flaws and defects. And so if those who are aimed at are the living, then regarding them I will say the same as that which I did about this one who has died: that the evil of these people does not reach the level of Pharaoh who claimed to be a deity worthy of worship [uluhiyyah].

Thus it is not fitting that we bring two types of hardness together, one of which is a necessity, i.e., the call to the truth which differentiates between the truth and falsehood, between a man and his brother, which was the reason one of the Noble Qur’aan’s names is Al-Furqaan [The Criterion], and which was also one of the names of the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام, because he, firstly, separated truth from falsehood, tawhid from shirk, indeed between a man and his son, between a son and his father … and so on. This is the nature of the call to the truth, so it is, thus, enough for us to call the people to this da’wah as He the Most High said:

“… with wisdom and good instruction …” [Nahl 16:125]

And something which should be mentioned here, as a reminder is …

Shaikh Al-Albaani on Shaikh Rabee’s Book on Sayyid Qutb’s Mistakes

Shaikh al-Albaani said about Shaikh Rabee’s book in which he explains the mistakes of Sayyid Qutb, “Everything that you have refuted Sayyid Qutb with is true and correct, and from that it will become clear to every Muslim reader who has some Islamic heritage that Sayyid Qutb was not acquainted with the fundamentals and subsidiary issues of Islaam.   So may Allaah reward you with the best of rewards, O brother Rabee, for fulfilling the obligation of clarifying and uncovering his ignorance and his deviation from Islaam.”

This book of Shaikh Rabee’s can be downloaded here.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

Questioner: Same answer?

Al-Albaani: Same answer.

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

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

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

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

Okay, carry on.

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

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

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: What is it?

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

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

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

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli.

Questioner: Az-Zarkashi or Az-Zirikli.

Al-Albaani: Az-Zirikli …

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes.

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

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

Questioner: … O Shaikh, I …

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

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

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

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

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

Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questioner: Are his books to be warned against?

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

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

Al-Albaani: And you, inshaa Allaah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 814.

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 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 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 …

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.


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 …

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.

%d bloggers like this: