The Clamor Surrounding As-Salafiyyah Should be Realized and Understood by the Youth
By Shaykh Muhammad Amaan Al Jaami
Akram Abdul Qaadir As-Saylaani an-Najdi
All Praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of All the Worlds, and may the Peace, Prayer, Mercy, and Blessings be upon His Trustworthy Messenger- Our Prophet Muhammad – and all his family and companions.
Before I begin with you on this speech, we live in this time – times where there is much talk – with a lot of speech and less action, and there’s a lot of refutation and a lot of recordings. I don’t know whether we are oblivious that we are accountable in front of Allaah for everything that we say, and for every statement we record. What’s surprising regarding our affair today is that we’ve come to record ourselves in addition to the angels recording our statements and actions for us. Recordings… every person has a tape, and have we realized that we are accountable for these tapes and its contents in front of Allaah? It is incumbent for this duty to be on the minds of every speaker.
Furthermore, what is this commotion surrounding the Creed of “As-Salafiyyah” and around the Salaf and the Khalaf ? What does this mean? With the knowledge that this is the belief that we live with, by the Praise of Allaah and His success. When it was first revived in this peninsula, there was world-wide commotion surrounding it. All of the world stood against this creed and ascribed attributes to it, and spread refutations and books written against this belief. We lived a strange life in our youth, how can the majority of the Muslims believe this? Because this peninsula was not upon anything, not upon religion. Some among them ignorantly labelled them as Mu’tazilah, and some of them said that they are Khawaarij. This creed was fiercely attacked. The books being spread now, the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and the books of his student, and those who were at their era, and those before them and after them, prior to the books of Ibn Abdul Wahhaab – these books were abandoned and unpublished. The books that we study now, such as Al-Waasityyah, At-Tadmuriyyah, Al-Hamawiyyah, and At-Tahawiyyah, these books were abandoned and were not known. Allaah bless this oppressed Da’wah (call). Under its shade, the books of Ibn Hanbal were published. He is considered the first revivalist (of the Sunnah) after the Sahaabah (companions of the Prophet -صلى الله عليه وسلم -). Then the books of the revivalist of the sixth generation, Ibn Taymiyyah and his student, were published. Therefore, the books were spread and there came about encouragement to publish and spread them and implement them in the curriculum of our schools, institutes, and universities. Then it went from the peninsula to the rest of the world, so the books were spread and schools were built upon it that now teach it in the deepest parts of the world. While the Da’wah (call) treads a new course outside (of the peninsula) with support and strong desire from the people of that land, we are surprised (to see) in the backyards of our homes, inside our countries, and with our youth that there are those who say: “We are not in need of Al-Waasitiyyah or At-Tahaawiyyah“, and those who say that Kitab at-Tawheed is not relevant to this time and was written in another time before ours, and we’re not in need of teaching the people of this time Usul at-Thalatha, ‘who is your Lord? Who is your prophet?’, (they say) we are not in need of this. Meaning, leave this religion, all of it, and search for another religion, and (leave) from this Islam that we live upon and that the earliest Muslims lived upon and search for another Islaam; a political activist Islam. What does this mean?
This commotion, all of it is in opposition to the (Islamic) Creed, because the Creed is what unites the Muslims. The people behind this commotion want to divide the Muslims with the call that they are uniting the Muslims, an inverse expression. They say: “We call the people to unite under the banner of Islam”. However, in reality, they call to the division and dispersion of the Muslims with the name of Islam. Our youth must comprehend this hype. Nevertheless, we complain about this tumult and about the ignorance of many of the people regarding the Salafee Creed (Al-Aqeedatus Salafiyyah). Perhaps they tried to make the Salafees a hizb (partisan group) from the partisans. “You fight against Partisanship and you say that we are the Salafees, isn’t this itself Partisanship?” Far from it! The Salafees are the people of the Path (of Sunnah), and the people of the Path (of Sunnah) are not from the partisan groups, and they are not from the people of affiliations. Those who tread the Path (of Sunnah) – the Path that the earliest Muslims where upon – they are the Salafees (As-Salafiyoon). Yaa An-Nisbah (يا النسبة) [the letter ي at the end of the word is of ascription], meaning an ascription to the Salaf (the early generations). So the Salafee Belief is not a belief that was placed by Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abdil Wahhaab, or or other than them. The creed is founded on the Book and the Sunnah, it doesn’t have any other source. It does not go beyond the Book and the Sunnah. This is the Belief of “As-Salafiyyah“. If we return to the linguistic origin, we find that “the Salaf” are those who preceded you, all of those who came before you from your fathers and grandfathers. Refer back to Al-Qaamoos (a famous Arabic dictionary) and Lisaanul Arab. The Salaf are your predecessors from your fathers and grandfathers, these people are your predecessors. As for you, if you come in agreement with them, then you are known as a Salafee, meaning that you ascribe to your predecessors. If you come in opposition to them, then it is said that you are a “Khalafee“. Khalafee or the Khalaf are those who came after their predecessors and differed with them. Therefore, the categorization (of the two) is not from us. The categorization is linguistic: “As-Salafiyoon“.
I regret to say that I read a question that some of our major scholars, the questioner didn’t name them, negate the existence of the the Salafees today, he said, all of the people are Khalaf. This is wrong, regardless of who said it, it’s upon him to refer back to the books of the language. The three categories are: Intellect, Linguistics, Legislation. Salaf, Khalaf, and Salafiyyoon. The Salafiyyoon ascribe to the Salaf. The Khalaf are in opposition to them (the Salaf). They are known in the Qur’aan as Khalf:
فخلف من بعدهم خلف أضاعوا الصلاة واتبعوا الشهوات فسوف يلقون غيّا
“Then, there has succeeded them a posterity who have given up As-Salat (the prayers) [i.e. made their Salat (prayers) to be lost, either by not offering them or by not offering them perfectly or by not offering them in their proper fixed times, etc.] and have followed lusts. So they will be thrown in Hell.“
Khalf. It is not said about them Khalaf. Due to that, the linguists differed over whether it is more linguistically correct to say Khalf or Khalaf ? Regarding those who oppose those who preceded them with a clear opposition, it is said the Khalf . The Khalaf is a general term for those who agree with them as well. The point is, the Salafee Creed that we call to, believe in, and base our religion upon, is a creed founded upon the Book and the Sunnah and not something placed (by any person). As for the other affiliations and Jama’aat (groups), the newly invented groups that were put in place (by people), then they are well known to everyone and you do not need to speak much about it.
After this, I say that we complain about this ignorance regarding the creed of the Salaf and this commotion surrounding the creed of the Salaf. I’m surprised at the person who studied the creed of the Salaf then calls to the beliefs of the Khawaarij (Extremist Renegades). Amazing! (He said:) “I emphasize to the students the creed of the Salaf in the well-known books, then I call to acting upon the belief of the Khawaarij in what I write, broadcast, and record, relating to the takfeer (excommunication) of the Muslims.” This is what is happening.
I would like to be upfront with you tonight (in this talk). At the start of these events (the Gulf war in the 90’s), I lectured at the Ameer Mut’ib Masjid, my first lecture. During my lecture, I discussed some of the ideologies regarding those events, specifically the issues of Isti’aanah (seeking assistance) and occupation without mentioning the lecturer, the recording, or the teacher. However, I discussed the ideology and found fault with it. After that, some of the youth contacted me asking about the ruling of distributing that tape among the people. I said that I do not see that this tape, which holds this ideology, should be distributed among the people. I know whose tape it is, and they knew that. Perhaps I had mentioned the person (speaking) on the tape during my discussion with the youth. From this there came about a bad understanding and resentment between me and the person (speaking) on the tape, the one who holds the ideology. When I found out about that, I requested a meeting with him to give advice; twice in Jeddah. After there was agreement, he rejected (to meet). So then I suggested that we have a meeting with our Shaykh, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin Baz, and he agreed. Then it didn’t take place. Then I tried to meet with him (again) to give advice because of what I saw from the ideologies that have been spread among his students, and from the one who contacted him. His ideologies are dangerous and confusing for the youth. From what is obligated on me, the obligation on those like me from the students of knowledge, is to clarify the Truth and disposing of the doubts. Due to that, I strove as much as I could. However, Allaah decreed and what He Wills, He does. Up to this day, the meeting has still not taken place. I then came across a book that is widely spread among you, so I read the summary in the conclusion of the book. I was utterly surprised! How can this speech be spread by a Salafee student of knowledge? Then I heard that he says that this speech in the conclusion are not his words, and were written on his behalf. In disputing this speech, I say:
Firstly, regarding the speech that I read in the conclusion, it is clear that it is the style of author of the book and perhaps it refers to the conclusion of the what was previously mentioned in the book.
Secondly, if the matter is as he mentioned, then is it permissible for him to stay silent for this long period without announcing that he is free from this speech? How can he not announce his innocence from this speech, while it is evident that it is his own speech? It is considered to be his speech, it’s attributed to him, and he carries the responsibility of this speech. A questioner may ask once again, is this exposition permissible? The answer is yes and then yes. Exposing something like this is an obligation and from sincere advice and is nothing like backbiting. You have heard my debate with Shaykh Nasir Al-Albaanee, the scholar of Hadeeth, the beloved whom I love for the sake of Allaah. This does not prevent my love for him and my ability to debate him in what becomes manifest to me in what he erred in. The error in this conclusion is worse than the error of Shaykh Nasir Al-Albaanee. Therefore, I see that the points made in the conclusion should be mentioned and debated and then the tape should be sent to the author of the book. We seek a meeting with him or a clarification of his stance from this speech of his or other than him. If the speech is from someone else, then he should free himself from it and if it’s not (from someone else), then he should repent to Allaah.
It is not permissible for him to spread this poisoned speech among the youth, misguiding the beliefs of the youth through the conclusion that our newspapers manifest disbelief and atheism. The author of this book is accountable for this (accusation) of disbelief and atheism that has ‘manifested’ in our newspapers. If it is said, for argument sake, that some of the newspapers have written statements of disbelief and atheism, then this is not the mannerism of advice. The method of advice is not scolding, rather it’s by admonition and warning the one who has written (words of) disbelief and atheism in the papers and to that (particular) newspaper. As for this generalization, it ruins the reputation of all the newspapers, with the knowledge that our newspapers are generally good, the best newspapers in the world even with its shortcomings and the many things that we can criticize. Regardless, they are the best newspapers that we know about, and we know of other newspapers. You know that , and this generalization is not correct. Then he says that the evil has been spread in our (sports) clubs, so when you announced that evil has been spread in our (sports) clubs, you ordered us with the good and forbade us from the evil? Or did you highlight this immorality and chaos in the world on our reputation and the reputation of our (sports) clubs and the reputation of this country, is this sincere advice? Is this the stance of a student of knowledge? “They call to fornication on our radio stations and television” Ya SubhanAllah! ( “يا سبحان الله” a statement made in amazement) If the Shaykh (Al-Hawali) views that what we’ve heard from those who watch television, that the foolish men chase the foolish women on the television screens, we’ve heard of this. They say this is a public show when the foolish men and women chase each other. If the Shaykh (Al-Hawali) sees this as a call to fornication, then it’s not incumbent that we highlight it with this manner, rather it’s incumbent that give sincere advice to those who are responsible in the Ministry of Information, and to those generally responsible to rectify this evil. We requested from some of our scholars that have a stronger voice than us in reaching those responsible that they rectify this issue and the issue of interest (usury), which will be mentioned soon. These problems, sins, and evils that have become manifest are never rectified with these mannerisms, nor is this the mannerism of the student of knowledge. This is the behavior of the one who wants to ruin the reputation and vilify the society and the state. None of this is from the affairs of the student of knowledge.
Then the Shaykh (Al-Hawali) said that we consider interest (usury) permissible. Why do you attribute making interest permissible to us and to all of the society O Shaykh? Do you know of an individual or individuals that consider interest permissible? Making something (that is prohibited) as permissible is disbelief, unless that it is from ta’weel (interpretation of the texts), if the person who deemed it permissible did so through an (a legitimate) interpretation or had some doubts or ignorance that is excused, then no (meaning it’s disbelief). Making something permissible (that is prohibited) is disbelief. There is a consumption of interest in our society and other societies by many people. Consuming interest is one thing, and permitting it is another. Consuming interest and committing immoral acts, like fornication or drinking alcohol or stealing and other than that, are from the major sins that if one were to act on, it would decrease their Eemaan (faith). He does not commit disbelief, a clear disbelief (by committing these acts) as long as he does not deem it permissible. As for the call that we permit interest, then he brings a statement that deceives the small students of knowledge. He says even the banks of the disbelievers are not far from the Sacred House of Allaah except but a few steps away. I ask a question here: is dealing with the banks of the disbelievers, buying and selling with them, trading with them, and the need for (dealing with) the banks of the disbelievers, the goldsmiths of the disbelievers, the blacksmiths of the disbelievers, and the manufacturers from the disbelievers – based on our needs from them and dealing with them- is this disbelief? Rather, is this a sin? Furthermore, is this something that Islam prohibited? Didn’t the Jews in Madeenah, during the time of the Messenger -عليه الصلاة والسلام-, blacksmiths and goldsmiths and the people dealt with them in buying and selling, real estate, and borrowing? They (the Jews) would make jewelry for them. Is all of that disbelief in that glorious Islamic society? Ya SubhanAllah! ( “يا سبحان الله” a statement made in amazement) Why this deception? When the layman or someone like him hears that the banks of the disbelievers are close to the Haramayn (the two sacred mosques, he feels shyness… “where is Islaam?” (He says) “Where is Islaam and these banks exist here? We have the Saudi French Bank, the Saudi British Bank… where is Islaam? If these are our dealings…” Emotions that prove ignorance. With that, the call of knowledge, the call of protective jealousy, the call of Islamic enthusiasm and esteem and other than it… and the attempt to deceive the youth and declare to them that they are the scholars, and they are the callers and others are with the authorities. I impose that all of us are with the authorities. Are the authorities disbelievers? We are with the authorities, and they are with us and you are with them and they are with you. Where do you all live? Don’t you live under the these government? Aren’t you employees of this government? Why these lies? Who from you are far away from the government? You deal with them! Ya SubhanAllah! ( “يا سبحان الله” a statement made in amazement) Is it a disbelieving authority? Don’t you fear Allah? You live under an Islamic government, we trust that its rulers and judges refer their rulings to what Allah says and what His Messenger -صلى الله عليه وسلم- says. This deception (of theirs) is not permissible! Allah, the Lord of All the Worlds, is watching. What is this?
Then he says that ruling by the (Islamic) legislation, “it is a call of old”. Pay attention to the statement in quotations: “it is a call of old.” Meaning, it doesn’t exist now. Ruling by (Islamic) legislation doesn’t exist now, that has been a call of old! Then he says that the truth is that the Sharee’ah (legislation) does not remain with us except what the Taaghoot (false idols) refer to as: individual affairs (such as marriage). (He says) Sharee’ah does not remain in Saudi Arabia except in individual matters. Furthermore, he says that some of the prescribed punishments are placed for the purpose of security, meaning that sometimes they are not established because of religiousness or ruling by Sharee’ah, however, it’s done to ensure security. You realized something, but then missed other things. Do you know that from the goal of these prescribed punishments,if established, is security?
“ولكم في القصاص حياة “
“And there is (a saving of) life for you in Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment)“
If the Al-Qisas (law of equality in punishment) is established, then security will be preserved, and the lives will be preserved. The people will fear it. If the punishments are being established, it’s for security and preserving life, wealth, honor, and intellect. How did you miss this and you are the Faqeeh (scholar of jurisprudence), the caller, the Salafee ? Where is all of this from your knowledge? Why this deception? Ya SubhanAllah! ( “يا سبحان الله“).
Then he says: “For some months we did not hear anything from him took place”, a statement from him, I don’t know who the pronoun is supposed to refer to. “For some months we did not hear anything from him took place”, meaning that you want the punishments to take place in every month and every week? If you don’t hear that the punishments did not take place in some months that we don’t have prescribed punishments except laws of individual affairs? What is this? This is deception. It’s not possible for him to fool a person on the street, he realizes this. Less than a month ago, a punishment was established here in Taymaa after this was written. It’s not necessary for the punishments, meaning, that we hear about the establishment of the punishments at all times, if something happens whether the punishment was established or not… what fallacy is this? What is the purpose of this fallacy?
At any rate, I mentioned these expressions to the letter from the conclusion of the book of the Shaykh (Al-Hawali) who is well-known to you, your Shaykh in the conclusion of his book. The Shaykh is accountable for these points. If he sees that he is lied upon, then it’s incumbent on him to hasten to announce his innocence and if not, then he is accountable for it in front of Allah. I am not intimidating him. I do not have any threats, I do not have any authority, and I am not saying he is accountable in front of the government here. He is accountable in front of Allah for misleading our youth and deceiving them. Between him and you. I’m not entering myself in it. I do not have have concern in this. However, my advice to him is that Allah is watching whatever he says. Maybe he has said more than this. This is what I surmised from his conclusion of his book at the end.
Finally, I want Shaykh Safar al Hawali to hear these words of mine. If he wants to reply or if he wants to request to meet, like we requested from him but he rejected it before. He should work to what will free him (from blame) in front of Allah. I don’t have any authority over him or to criticize another except a legislated criticism. From the perspective of politics, I do not enter into that, and what’s between him and the government, then I don’t enter into that. I repeat my words with emphasis on sincere advice for him and for his call to be made knowing that Allaah is watchful and he should return to what is correct and announce his innocence from this speech if the speech is not his. Then my sincere advice for the youth is that what the Shaykh has spread in this book has nothing to do with Islam, it’s the creed of the Khawaarij, so they should understand that very well, and with Allaah is Success.