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 deep understanding, and detailed vision, Al-‘Allaamah ‘Abdullaah bin
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
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.
Muhammad wa ‘alaa aalihi wa sahbihi ajma’een.
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
ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem, wa sallallaahu ‘alaa ‘abdihi wa rasoolihi,
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.
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
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
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.
[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.
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)
difference merely because of labels is not permissible, and Allaah
has ordered the Believers to be united, and warned from splitting
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
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
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.
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’
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
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
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
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.
[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
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?
removing of the Munkar came in steps, as is in the Hadeeth in the
saying of the Messenger;
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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]?
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.
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
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,
'we don’t understand much of what you say.'}
And even so,
it has come in Saheeh al-Muslim,
[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.
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
Scholars have divided kufr into categories: Kufr of turning away,
kufr of arrogance, kufr of belie (takdheeb), and kufr of doubt.
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
(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)