There are many circumstances surrounding your relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood; is it possible to clarify them?

Al-Hawini: All right; my Shaykh, regarding your story with the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly is the story? Because there are many circumstances and back-and-forth, and of course, perhaps this will be the final word on the matter.

The Shaykh : From whose perspective, I mean?
Al-Hawini: How did you start your relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood? And why did you leave the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Shaykh : That is a wrong question. I was never a Brotherhood member, so how can it be said: why did I leave?!
Al-Hawini: And that is what is commonly said.

The Shaykh : Good, so I say: I am now as I was in the beginning; that is, I do not adopt any of the parties, nor do I call for partisanship. Therefore, in my person, I am willing to attend with all the groups, just as the other groups, except the rigid and extremists among them, are willing to attend my lessons. Because I do not call for a specific party or a specific group. So, I was with the Muslim Brotherhood there in Syria for the entire time I spent, just as I am with all Muslims; that is, I listen to their lectures and attend their circles as far as is possible for me. And if there was an opportunity for reminding and teaching, I did so and did not fall short. This teaching and conveying the call is what kept me closely connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, to the extent that I used to travel with their trips, and I would enjoy their outings, seizing them as an opportunity to convey the call. Because in my previous belief, which has not changed except slightly later regarding this country where I am now, my position regarding the Muslim Brotherhood has not changed. So, I still call them, as I call all Muslims, to follow the Book and the Sunnah. And I am still, as I was before, not of the Muslim Brotherhood in their methodology and tactics, as they say. Their methodology differs completely from our methodology. This can be summarized in a very short word: our methodology is based on the principle of "educate then organize," while their methodology is based on the principle of "organize then educate." And this is a completely deviant methodology. Therefore, their methodology required that there be in the Muslim Brotherhood the sectarian, the independent of the sects, the Salafi, the Sufi, and even the Shi'ite. Because their call is based on gathering, not on education. So, I used to—and still do—exploit this gathering for the benefit of the call. But at some times, party fanaticism imposes on them to contradict this methodology of theirs based on gathering, so they divide.
And this is what happened to me from them here in Amman, not there in Syria. In Syria, the matter was, I mean, for the benefit of the call, and its effects appeared in the senior officials of the Muslim Brotherhood; for example, "Ismail al-Attar" and "Zuhayr al-Shawish." These were among those who attended—though sometimes—our lessons. Because their commitment to a specific Brotherhood system and methodology does not allow them to be with us in all our lessons and meetings. In fact, they and those like them consider themselves to be among my students. And the same was the case when I first started visiting here; a door was opened for me to deliver some lectures at the Muslim Brotherhood center in Zarqa. And without a doubt, these lectures were a great opening for some of the eager and longing Brotherhood youth to hear the word of the Salafi call that distinguishes the corrupt from the good. So the youth's attendance there was very unusual. Here, the effects of partisanship began to appear. It seems that when some of the heads there felt this attendance, they turned their backs on us, as it is said, and they no longer offered us to deliver a lecture there whenever we visited them. So we understood the matter. Naturally, I am not a man who hopes to speak in such gatherings, but if it is facilitated for me, I do not refrain; because the Shari'ah commands me to do so. So I moved my call to one of the mosques of Zarqa, especially the mosque of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). There, too, many of the youth attended, including some of the Muslim Brotherhood. And this was before I settled in Amman. Then, when I settled in Amman, there was also personal attendance on me with questions, and from some of their heads, too, like Dr. Abdullah 'Azzam. He was very keen to catch everything he heard, writing bullet points in a small notebook he usually carried with him. The important thing is that then the Brotherhood began to distance themselves from the call in general, and from the caller to it in particular, when they found some of their youth had become Salafis. So they sent after two of them and warned them not to attend the circlesThe Shaykh : of Al-Albani. And a discussion took place between them and their responsible person, about what the reason was. So the answer was very strange, that a member of the Brotherhood cannot have two loyalties in himself; loyalty to the call—meaning the Brotherhood call—and loyalty to Shaykh Al-Albani. These are two things that do not coexist.
Their answer was: The group of Al-Albani has no party and no organization. In fact, he does not see all these organizations; because they divide the Muslim community. So when we attend with him, let us benefit from his knowledge. So what do you fear from him, as long as he does not call for an organization against your organization? And they insisted on the position: two loyalties do not coexist; so either it is us orThe Shaykh : , and they gave them a grace period of six months according to their system to review themselves and repent to their Lord. The time came; they requested them, summoned them, and found them "in the same place"—meaning as they were. I mean, they were gentle with them: "What is it, brothers, stay with us, we are with you, Shaykh, but you... we are with you, we want to benefit fromThe Shaykh : And this is what harms you." So they expelled them. Then it was Al-Albani's turn, and they issued a decision to boycott Al-Albani and everyone who takes refuge in him, his lectures and his sessions, and so on, even greeting him on the road.
Al-Hawini: They forbid them?

The Shaykh : Yes, a decision in this is a decision!
Al-Hawini: Subhan Allah!

The Shaykh : Yes, and this good man Abdullah 'Azzam was naturally included in the decision.
Al-Hawini: Meaning, also?

The Shaykh : So he would meet us on the road and not greet. Once he was surprised by me in the mosque of 'Umar 'Abd al-Fattah, what is the name of this mosque at the seventh roundabout? The important thing is face to face... what is this, Shaykh Abdullah? What is this? He said: "This is, if Allah wills—I think this is its meaning—a summer cloud, and soon it will clear." And days passed, and we were more active in holding evening gatherings than now. So when we were restricted in terms of not having meetings, these decreased. So in one of those gatherings, the youth who were forbidden by decision from sitting withThe Shaykh : and his lectures and lessons attended, so this topic was raised and we said to them: brothers, what does it mean that your call is based on gathering, so what does it mean to issue a decision forbidding the Muslim youth to meet with Al-Albani? Is this not first a contradiction of Islam ? And secondly, this decision cannot be implemented, and the proof is you yourselves, for this decision was imposed on you and you cannot do without attendingThe Shaykh : lessonsThe Shaykh : . And I do not say this in pride, but I say it out of necessity for clarification. Approximately two years have passed since this decision, unfortunately, but as time delayed, it began to dissolve, meaning to disintegrate, until Abdullah 'Azzam himself came to the house and did not find me, so he went to the house ofThe Shaykh : 'Amir 'Atiyyah, and asked about me? He said: He might be at his son-in-law's, his daughter's. Indeed, I was at my son-in-law "Nizam's." And when the door was knocked on, he came with thisThe Shaykh : 'Ali—also—.

Another questioner : 'AliAl-Halabi ؟

The Shaykh: No.

Another questioner : 'Ali...

The Shaykh : 'Ali al-Satri, did you know him?

Another questioner : Yes, I knew him.

The Shaykh : So they entered on me, and for the first time I met 'Azzam after that estrangement. He said: We came to the house and did not find you, and we redirected to the house ofThe Shaykh : Ahmad, we waited for you there for two hours hoping you would meet us, so that we could return with you to meet with you. Finally, I was told that you might be here, so we came to you. We asked him, “Is it good?” Aside from what appeared to be the case? He said, “By Allah, I have questions.” I told him, for the first time, “Every question costs a trip; meaning, you come to me for it, you don’t come once and take all the answers to the questions in one batch. Every question and its answer is a trip.” He was naturally surprised and asked, “Why?” I said, “So that we understand what led you to issue that unjust decision? What did I do?” He said, “You declared Sayyid Qutb a disbeliever.” Did I declare him a disbeliever? He said, “Yes.” I said, “Did you hear that from me?” He said, “No.” I said, “Then what do you know that I declared him a disbeliever?” He said, “By Allah, some of the youth came and cursed us, saying thatThe Shaykh : Al-Albani declares Sayyid Qutb a disbeliever. I told him—meaning—“When they conveyed this lie to you, did you say, ‘Amen’? Did you believe them? Where are you, and what do you claim regarding returning to the Book and the Sunnah? The Book says what is not hidden from anyone in the Ummah: ; what prevented you from verifying, while I am close to you? I am not in Damascus now; I am among you. So why did you not verify, but rather immediately believed the false news and built upon it the separation between Muslims? Even though the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) also confirms the meaning of the verse in a wonderful way, saying: , how did you hear this and not only speak of it, but build a decision upon it, considering that he is a member of the council?
With the hadith, we entered into the fact that I do not declare Sayyid Qutb a disbeliever, but Sayyid Qutb spoke the word of disbelief, but we do not declare a person a disbeliever by the word of disbelief; because first, the argument was not established against him, nor was his attention drawn to what he said, and so on. He said, “Where?” I told him, “In Surat al-Hadid and Surat al-Ikhlas.” He said, “But in another place he says that it is tawhid al-rububiyyah, tawhid al-uluhiyyah, and the attributes, and so on, and he denies the unity of existence.” We said, “This is possible, and therefore this is one of the reasons that prevent us from saying he is a disbeliever, but his statement of what he said at that time in the book? The meaning of his words is that there is no existence of the Truth except the existence of the Truth—(Glorified and Exalted is He)—and this is the speech of the Sufis, meaning that it is not he but He, our existence is imaginary and the existence of the Divine is the real existence, and so on.
So the important thing is that we discussed this issue with him, and we answered some of his questions, and the man left. Later, and he knew, yes, it was among what I told him—this is very important—I told him, “Mr. Professor, you used to attend my lessons, did you not hear from me that we do not declare a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah a disbeliever, even if he falls into disbelief, except after the argument is established? We differ from some of the supporters—supporters of the Sunnah—who declare individuals disbelievers like this arbitrarily.” He said, “Yes.” I told him, “How did this not occur to you when the youth conveyed to you that Al-Albani declares Sayyid Qutb a disbeliever? The important thing is that he knew my opinion frankly that I do not declare Sayyid Qutb a disbeliever, and then I was surprised months later by three articles published by the magazine al-Mujtamak in Kuwait by Dr. Abdullah 'Azzam, with large headlines: “Dr. 'Azzam’s response toThe Shaykh : Al-Albani in his declaration of Sayyid Qutb as a disbeliever.”
Al-Hawini: Glory be to Allah! After this meeting?

The Shaykh: After this meeting, we said, “Glory be to Allah, how is this person! Days passed, and now a friend here who knows Abdullah 'Azzam before me, and he is his friend, was Abdullah 'Azzam at that time in Saudi Arabia, so he came here. Our friend said to me, “Today or tomorrow I have an invitation that Abdullah 'Azzam will attend, and I would like you to attend with us.” I told him, “With pleasure and honor, but with one condition.” He said, “What is it?” I said, “That you give us a special time for me to be alone with Dr. 'Azzam to discuss with him...,” and I told him the story, how he understood from me that I do not declare Sayyid Qutb a disbeliever? How did he publish three articles against this established fact and attribute to me the declaration of disbelief? He said, “I have no objection.” And so it was, so I was alone with him, and I said to him, “Yes, Mr. Professor 'Azzam, how are these articles you are writing after our meeting at my son-in-law’s house and your frank understanding of me, not through the youth who conveyed to you the declaration of disbelief, then I clarified to you: I do not declare Sayyid Qutb a disbeliever first, and I do not declare a Muslim a disbeliever except after the argument is established? How did you now publish these articles?” He said, “By Allah, I was in Makkah, and some of the youth came to me and said to me, thatThe Shaykh : Al-Albani is such and such and such. Yes, Halimah returned to her old habit! It seems he was influenced by the youth, and you heard from me the opposite of what you hear from them. How is this, O Abdullah, this is not permissible in Islam, and so on, so I did not leave him until he pledged to me that he would correct the position.

Another questioner: ... in al-Mujtamak.

The Shaykh : And this.
Al-Hawini: How long ago was this, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh: This happened a year and a half, two years or more.

The questioner: Two years and it was not published?

The Shaykh: Yes, it was a year and a half, two years when it was published in al-Mujtamak, yes, it seems the group has a truth in their possession, they do not have a rational judgment. He, after he went to Afghanistan, is like the general guide, it seems there, so he visited me a year ago in my house, and asked me some questions related to war spoils and the like that did not come up in the session, so they do not see, meaning, they have any responsibility if they speak about the honor of a Muslim, as long as that is in the way of victory for blind partisanship; so this is my story with the Muslim Brotherhood.
In short: I was never of the Muslim Brotherhood and I will not be; because their methodology is not my methodology, but I do not declare them disbelievers, nor do I rule them as misguided except for the one who transgresses, and I am with them like other Muslims, meaning I call them to Allah, so if one responds, then good, otherwise there is no power and no strength except in Allah.