[Note: The following introduction is from the translator of this interview, the Q&A is below...] As-Salaamu ‘alaykum, I tried to translate the whole interview, including the introduction, from al-Bashaa’ir magazine. I must note that my Arabic translation is not that great, so if someone wants to check it he can, and he can edit it, and he can distribute it, but must remove my name from it. I did not translate the last question that was asked to the Shaykh, because it was more related to the Rawaafid than the Khuloof. I still highly recommend whoever is able to, that it be read in Arabic.

The translation is below:

A short introduction:

Al-‘Allaamah, with the deep understanding, and detailed vision, Al-‘Allaamah ‘Abdullaah bin Muhammad al-Ghunaymaan.

And the Shaykh is well known amongst the people of Knowledge, and is famous for his deep understanding, especially in the ‘Aqeedah of Ahl us-Sunnah and their methodology. And he has a complete relationship (understanding) with the books of Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his way, with a comprehensive acquaintance with the Madhhab of the Salaf and the sayings of Imaam Ahmad particularly, as well as his companions.

With regards to the writings of the Shuyookh of the Salafi Da’wah of Najd, then he is experienced in it and what they were upon of the sciences and understandings. And he is aware of the opposing madhhaahib (in ‘aqeedah) and how to refute them with the textual and intellectual evidences.

He was appointed the head of the ‘Aqeedah department in the Islaamic University in Madeenah al-Munawwarah, then he was appointed the head of the whole honors department, and he taught in the college of Da’wah and others, and in the Masjid an-Nabawi, and his lectures were intended for the students of Knowledge. In his lectures he explained Kitaab at-Tawheed, and he taught al’Aqeedah al-Waasitiyah, and the sunan of Abu Dawood, and other books as well.

And he has many writings, amongst them is the Sharh of Kitaab at-Tawheed from Saheeh al-Bukhaari, and the Mukhtasar of Minhaaj as-Sunnah, and he has other writings and authentications all of which are beneficial, and from the most helpful and important books for the students of Knowledge.

The Shaykh then returned to Burayda his home town, and stayed to teach in the masjid, write, help the students of Knowledge, and to answer questions with easiness and wisdom which is hard to find in many of the people of Knowledge, as if he picked these manners of answering and responding from the older scholars, not from those of his time. May Allaah preserve him, and lengthen his age, and Bless his work, and make him steadfast upon the Truth - Ameen.

And what will proceed is the text of the questions I asked him, and his answers, which Al-Bashaa’ir put forth for the students of Knowledge, so it can be a manar that they be guided by, and a lamp they light by. We ask Allaah to reward him for what he gave us of his time, and put this on his scale, Allaah is Ghafoor, Shakoor.

Sallalaahu ‘alaa Muhammad wa ‘alaa aalihi wa sahbihi ajma’een.

------------------------------------------------

Q: What are the general fundamentals of Ahl us-sunnah, in which a person who opposes them (the fundamentals) he would then be considered to have left Ahl us-Sunnah?... Also, which book has gathered them all (the fundamentals)?

A: Bismillaah ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem, wa sallallaahu ‘alaa ‘abdihi wa rasoolihi, nabeenaa Muhammad.

The fundamentals of Ahl us-Sunnah are what came in the hadeeth of Jibreel, belief in Allaah, his angels, etc, and what branches off from it. Regarding the book that has gathered them, the ‘Aqeedah of Ahl us-Sunnah has gathered them all. So whoever leaves these fundamentals, he will be considered to have left Ahl us-Sunnah.

Q: Is practicing Hijrah (from a person who is in sin, or innovation) related to the overall good and evil outcome?

A: Yes, Hijrah is discipline and a treatment, so if Hijrah does not gain anything but instead increases him (the person who the hijrah is from) in falsehood, then it is not permissible to do Hijrah from him. Instead he is spoken to and advised in a way which is most beneficial to him. Whereas if [neither] speech nor debate benefits him, then he should be turned away from.

Q: Is it permissible to criticize (shar’i), to make hijrah and be baraa’ (i.e. having enmity) from someone merely because of his following of the Madhaahib (ways) or Jamaa’aat like the Ikhwaan or Tableegh and others?... And what is the Shar’i way to affirm praise and criticism for individuals, sides, and groups?

A: This way is not permissible, merely because of following a group from the groups of the Muslims, for example a fiqhi madhhab or what resembles this. It is not permissible to make this a cause of cutting relations, hate and enmity. Enmity and hatred should be with regards to what has come in the Kitaab of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). And some claim a differing with them in an understanding is an opposing in the manhaj, and it is possible that he is the opposing and mistaken, and the other closer to the Truth than him.

And what is meant is that the Meezaan (scale) should be the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and the praise is for who Allaah and his Messenger have praised.

And similarly criticism is for who Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) have criticized, and with the names that Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) have named.

Whereas [concerning] people; then it is not looked to them (their meezaan) in praise and criticism, because they could be following desires or wrong in their sayings, and there are many things which can effect a person in his praisings and criticizing of others. And the waajib is to be fair. And Allaah has ordered justice in saying and action, and so it is obligatory to follow Allaah’s Saying in this.

Q: What is your opinion of he who differentiates between Ahl us-Sunnah and the Salafiyyah, and makes the Salafiyyah a group more specified than Ahl us-Sunnah, and who make its fundamentals what the mashaayikh of their "group" are upon of opinions and sayings? (Note from the translator: this is what the Khuloof [i.e. the so-called Salafis] do, making the opinions of their Mashaayikh into the fundamentals of the Sunnah)

A: This saying is far from the Truth, because Ahl us-Sunnah are those who follow the Sahaabah and what the Salaf were upon, and these were not one sect, and the others another sect (Note: I think he is referring to the Sahaabah and the remaining two generations of the Salaf), nor is the Salafiyyah more specific!

And what is correct is that the Salaf are the Sahaabah and whoever follows their path, and Ahl us-Sunnah are those who have followed the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and they are those which it was narrated about

“...What I and my Sahaabah were upon” (The hadeeth of the saved sect)

And claiming difference merely because of labels is not permissible, and Allaah has ordered the Believers to be united, and warned from splitting up.

And the person’s hope should be for Truth, and if he says something; he says it with fairness and justice. He shouldn’t hate a person and cause his hatred to [make himself] reject the Truth which the other says, or to attack his shortcomings, nor should he bring things... (Note: I don’t understand the rest of this phrase), this has nothing to do with Ahl us-Sunnah. And the Muslim should love for his Brother what he loves for himself, and he should advise him, and should make the advice loved by him.

Q: What is your opinion regarding denying Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah, and is making it into a separate category a cause to exit someone from the way of the Salaf? And in which type of Tawheed does this category enter?

A: It is not permissible to deny Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah, for it is from the types of Tawheed. But it falls under Tawheed al-‘Ibaadah with regards to the ruler himself as a person. With regards to it meaning Tawheed, then it falls under ar-Ruboobeeyyah, because the Ruler is Allaah.

So it should be that the Rabb is the Muttasarrif, He is the One who has the Hukm, so it falls under Tawheed Ar-Ruboobeeyyah with regards to ruling, ordering, prohibiting, and carrying out, whereas regards to application and action then the slave is responsible for following the Hukm of Allaah, so then it is from Tawheed Al-‘Ibaadah in this sense.

And making it into a fourth category doesn’t make sense because it falls into the three categories. And the division without a reason is a cause of extra words which are not needed, and it is a simple matter anyway. If he makes it a separate category then he is being redundant, and there is no harm it. (Notice, although he seems to prefer avoiding the extra division, he still affirmed the whole meaning, and the phrase Haakimiyyah itself. The khuloof claim that this is a bid’ah)

Q: Leaving the ruling by what Allaah revealed by making the modern laws into the general legislation, a person who does this, is he to be declared a kaafir?... And is there a difference between him and between he who rules with the Sharee’ah but then sometimes he judges by what opposes the Sharee’ah because of desire, or bribes, or anything similar to this?

A: Yes, the difference is needed. There is a difference between he who removed Allaah’s Law and put in its place the modern laws, and ruled the people by them, then he is a Kaafir and left the Millah (Religion) of Islaam. Whereas he who is Muslim, but he is sinning and oppressive because he follows his desires in some rulings and follows after worldly benefit while affirming that he is sinning, this type would not be a kaafir who has left the Millah.

And whoever thinks that ruling by the modern laws is like ruling by the Sharee’ ah and makes it permissible, then he is also a kaafir and left the Millah of Islaam, even if it is only in one issue. (Note: Notice, the Shaykh says that the one who rules by man-made laws is a kaafir, and clarifies that there is a difference between today's rulers, and those rulers of the past. The Khuloof try to claim that those who rule by the man-made laws/systems, are the same as those rulers in the past who used to rule by Allaah’s Law, but every now and then went against his law in a case or matter, because of dunya, like many of the Khaleefahs would do after the era of the Khulafaa’ ar-Raashidoon)

Q: Is it permissible to claim Ijmaa’ (consensus) of the Salaf on that there is no takfeer on the ruler who rules by other than what Allaah revealed?...

A: This is not correct, claiming Ijmaa’ of the Salaf on this.

And this also opposes the evidences, for the texts from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger show that he who judges by other than what Allaah revealed completely is a Kaafir. And Allaah swears by this and says

{and No, by your Lord, they will not believe, until they place you as a judge in all affairs that come between them, and then they will find no dislike in themselves in what you decide, and they submit completely.}

Also,

{Don’t you see those who were given part of the Book and believe in the Jibt and Taaghoot and they say to those who disbelieve, these are upon a more guided path than those who believe.}

And it is known that this is like what Shaykh Al-Islaam Muhammad bin ‘Abdel-Wahhaab (rahimahullaah) said; that this preference from them, of preferring the way of the Kuffaar over the way of the Mu'mineen, was not based on ‘Aqeedah, because they knew with certainty that the way of the Mu'mineen is better and more Guided, and yet Allaah has cursed them.

Q: Is praising some of those who fall into bid’ah - regarding the good they have done in the matters of Islaam which agreed with the Sunnah; is doing so (i.e. praising them in their good) deviating from the Minhaaj of the Salaf?... And did Ibn Taymiyyah do so?... And was his doing so from being just and fair?

A: Yes, a person should be treated fairly in his right, and the Truth should be said about him; so if he does good, it is said to him ‘you did good.’ If he is mistaken, it is said to him ‘you have been mistaken.’ And it has proceeded that the Meezaan for this is the Kitaab and Sunnah, regarding what Allaah has declared good and praised, it is obligatory to declare it good and praise it. And what Allaah has criticized, then it should be criticized.

And it is possible that a person leaving the evidence and Truth be because of Ijtihaad, and he would not be a sinner, and the sign of this is if the Truth is made clear to him then he returns to the Truth, follows it, and disassociates himself regarding what he was upon before. So it is not permissible to embarrass him, but he should be praised.

And [regarding] Shaykh Al-Islaam, this was his way, and his books are present. He used to praise some of the people, even if they were opposing [him] in a matter in which they differed from Ahl us-Sunnah.

Q: Is it a condition that to remove a Munkar (i.e. evil, wrong-doing) by hand, that permission should first be sought from the ruler?

A: The removing of the Munkar came in steps, as is in the Hadeeth in the saying of the Messenger;

"Whoever of you sees a Munkar then he should change it with his hand, if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not able, then with his heart."

And this is general for the one who is changing the Munkar and for the Munkar itself. And in it there is no specification of anyone over anyone else, except that the matter and conditions should be examined, so if the changing of the Munkar will cause a greater Munkar then it is not permissible to change it, regardless if the person is a ruler or a citizen.

But if he knows that if he changes the munkar, then the munkar will lessen and good will come out, then he must change the munkar whether he is a ruler, or other than the ruler. This is because of the meaning of the hadeeth of the Rasool (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). And regarding narrowing the words of Allaah and His Messenger without evidence, then it is not permissible.

(Note: the Khuloof try to claim that to change a Munkar with your hand, you must seek permission of the ruler first. The Shaykh refutes this type of idea)

Q: Is it permissible to make the fundamentals of the Deen to be only the issues of Belief, and make the branches the issues of action?

A: The fundamentals of the Deen are not the Beliefs only. There is no separation between the ‘Aqeedah and actions in the Deen. There is no where in the Kitaab, nor the Sunnah that the fundamentals are the ‘Aqeedah alone, and that the branches are actions alone. This differentiation came from the Mu’tazilah, for they are the ones who differentiated between the fundamentals and branches in this way.

Q: Is it a condition for defensive or offensive Jihaad that a ruler exist?... Imaam ‘Abdur-Rahmaan bin Hasan (rahimahullah) mentioned that no one of the people of Knowledge ever made this condition, so do you know of anyone to make this condition?

A: It is not one of the conditions of Jihaad, neither defensive or offensive.

Regarding the defensive Jihaad, then it is clear, because if the enemy enters the lands [of the Muslims], then [the obligation to fight] is upon everyone who is able to fight him off; [concerning] even the women it is obligatory upon them to fight, like the fuqahaa’ have mentioned, because this is a individual (‘ayn) obligation. The [purpose of the] Imaam is for organization; so if one exists then this is good, and if none exists it is still waajib upon the Muslims to fight.

Q: What is the difference between receiving the proof, and understanding the proof (Hujjah)?... Which of them is a condition for establishing
the proof (Hujjah) [against a person]?

A: Receiving the proof means that he has heard the Kitaab of Allaah, and heard that Allaah has a Messenger; then the proof becomes established. In regards to understanding it, it is not a condition, and no one has made it one.

And the difference is clear, for Allaah has told us that from the Kuffaar are those that are blind, deaf and mute, and calling him is like calling the beasts: they don’t hear anything except a call and sounds.

And He has said that many of the people of Hell have hearts that they don’t understand with, and that many of them are more astray than cattle. And He (Jalla wa ‘alaa) said,

{They say, 'we don’t understand much of what you say.'}

And even so, it has come in Saheeh al-Muslim,

“By Allaah, [there is] not a red or white [person] who hears of me and does not Believe, except that Allaah will make him fuel in Hell.”

So Allaah made their hearing the proof enough. So if he hears, it is up to him to understand, and he should ask for the understanding himself.

Q: Leaving acting completely (meaning turning away from acting upon the obligations, and leaving the prohibitions); has he turned away from submission?... And is his Eemaan correct with [merely the] testification of the Truth and affirming it (Tasdeeq wa Iqraar), while leaving all actions completely without a cause?

A: This is not possible to be straight, to leave acting completely! Because Islaam is action, and not merely saying. And if a person said “Laa illaaha illallaah” and believed in its correctness and that the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is True, but he does nothing at all - while his ability to [is intact] - then he is ruled as a kaafir, and he is not from the people of Islaam because it is an obligation of submission, following, and action.

Q: And the saying that kufr is not possible except through Takdheeb (i.e. declaring something that is agreed upon to be false); is this branching off from the saying of the Murji’ah?

A: Kufr is many types, and the Murji’ah and others of them from the people of innovation said that it's basis must be Takdheeb only, but this saying opposes the evidence and Truth.

And it is known that the Messenger was sent with miracles and proofs that will cause the heart to be humble. Takdheeb is the least that occurs in the peoples. The most common kufr is the kufr of arrogance, denial, and stubborness, and Allaah has mentioned regarding the Quraysh that they don’t belie the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), but instead the Dhaalimeen to Allaah’s Aayaat deny, and this is very common.

So the Scholars have divided kufr into categories: Kufr of turning away, kufr of arrogance, kufr of belie (takdheeb), and kufr of doubt.

And the evidences for this are many in the Kitaab of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). And the story of Abi Taalib with the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is clear. And he used to testify to his Truth, and would say that he does not lie, and did not bring any lies, and yet he is a Kaafir, because he did not affirm with his tongue, nor submit with his actions.

(There is a final question, which is related to what occurred between the Sahaabah, and refutes the Rawaafid. The question is not related to the remainder of the questions, and I don’t think there is a problem in this issue on this forum, inshaa’ Allaah)