What is your opinion of the one who says that it is not permissible to be named other than Muslim, and that whoever does so has called to other than Islam?

The questioner : ... If the Islamic groups are a cause of disagreement and division among the Muslims, and these names are not from Islam in the least, the Lord of the Worlds named the people Muslims, Muslim, and this name is sufficient. If you say: so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, these names that people have innovated, the Muslims become divided at that time, and the dispute between them becomes severe. So we gather the Muslims upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and they all agree upon this call: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. It is obligatory upon us to forget these names and not call to them. And he also states that whoever calls to these names; come, so you become so-and-so, come, let us work in such-and-such a faction, such-and-such a group, is sinful before Allah (Mighty and Majestic); because he does not call to Islam, but rather calls to names that he and those around him in this group have innovated. Therefore, it is obligatory that we overthrow all these names, and call the people to the Book and the Sunnah by the name of Islam and Muslims, Muslim only. This is the summary of his statement.

The Shaykh: All right; I will give a concise answer and a detailed answer.
The concise answer: The one who says this is like the ostrich that sees the hunter and puts its head in the sand, so out of its stupidity it thinks that when it does not see the hunter, the hunter does not see it. He makes the naming a cause of division. This is upon the responsibility of the transmitter, who is you. So we say: How old is this naming?

The questioner : Old.

The Shaykh: Say: fifty, a hundred, two hundred, three hundred. So we will say: Did the division of the Muslims into various schools and paths occur before this naming or after? No doubt that everyone who has some knowledge and a little fairness will say: The division was before the existence of this name. It is true ... that he says: This one is Syrian, this one is Jordanian, this one is Egyptian, this one is Albanian, this one is Turkish, this one is Afghan; has anyone denied these origins, which express his reality? I am actually Albanian, Syrian, Jordanian, I have gathered three attributes, what Allah wills, in the last of time. What is wrong with this? There is nothing wrong with it if it expresses the reality. But if I say I am Albanian and raise my head and look down upon every other Muslim who is not Albanian, from here comes deviation and misguidance. We know from the history of the early Muslims, the Emigrants and the Helpers, and they are mentioned by the explicit text of the Noble Qur'an as Emigrants and Helpers. So those who follow these Emigrants and Helpers in their footsteps and do not deviate to the right or the left, it is obligatory upon them to clarify their call to the people. If this poor man you are pointing to says: It is sufficient for us to call to Islam; is it sufficient for him to say: Islam only? ... The Book and the Sunnah, but upon the methodology of the righteous predecessors. So the methodology of the righteous predecessors summarized it: "The Salaf." Do you attribute yourself to the Salaf, O so-and-so? Yes; so you are a Salafi. If you do not attribute yourself to the Salaf, you are deviant, there is no escape from this.

The questioner: Does this mean it is a necessary condition?

The Shaykh: It is necessary, especially in this time, otherwise everyone would say: We are Muslims and Book and Sunnah. Therefore, you have known that this demand is negligence and turning the truth upside down. This name was the result of the disagreement, and the disagreement was not the result of this name. And the disagreement was among its results the existence of so-and-so's school and so-and-so's school and their division, until it reached the point where they did not pray behind one another. And if we know these details that return first to history, and second to turning the effect into the cause and the cause into the effect, if we know this reality, we return to say: That so-and-so is calling to what so-and-so is calling to. So-and-so is followed by people. First: We do not say to people follow so-and-so, but rather we say to them: Follow the Book of Allah and follow the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). He calls to this call, and those who follow him know this call completely. But they do not find, unfortunately, from the scholars of knowledge those who distinguish first between the jurisprudence of the Book and the Sunnah and the traditional jurisprudence. This one lived as a Hanafi so he does not know other than the Hanafi school, and this one lived as a Maliki so he does not know other than the Maliki school, and that one is Shafi'i and Hanbali. This one calls to following the jurisprudence of the Book and the Sunnah, but for some people in some countries it is very normal when they do not find at least around them someone they trust in his knowledge, so they are forced to take the knowledge of those around them. But he does not call to imitating him and turning away from following the other scholars if they are found. And his example, if this approximation and this analogy is correct, is like the Imams. All the Imams said: "Do not imitate me, do not imitate me, and do not imitate Malik or al-Shafi'i or al-Awza'i, and take from where they took."
This caller to following the righteous predecessors, who is so-and-so, has the same call. But if he is afflicted with people who actually imitate him or are fanatical for him, this is not his call. Just as imitating the Imams is not their call, but rather their call is following the Book and the Sunnah. And suppose that so-and-so who says that I call to the call of so-and-so, is he knowledgeable about the Salafi call? Is he knowledgeable about the Book and the Sunnah, or is it a general word of following the Book and the Sunnah? If he is asked about the Book and the Sunnah, he does not know. Like the story of that Syrian with the Kurd, excuse me; that Kurd with the Jew when he met him on the road and said to him: So-and-so, become Muslim. And he drew the dagger on him, become Muslim or I will kill you. He said to him: What do I say? He said to him: I do not know. And he was threatening him with death that he become Muslim. When he asked him how to become Muslim? He said to him: I do not know. So this one who claims that he calls to the Salafi call that so-and-so calls to, but so-and-so was followed by people over other people, is he knowledgeable? Is he able to distinguish, for example, the general and the specific, the absolute and the restricted, the abrogating and the abrogated from one aspect? And is he able to know the authentic from the weak of the hadith from another aspect ... Either negligence or feigned ignorance. So the Salafi call is a general call that encompassed the entire Islamic world by the grace of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), then by the grace of the callers scattered in the countries.
Second: These people do not imitate a specific person, they imitate, if the expression is correct, a specific methodology. Whoever says to them: Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said, they follow him. If it is Zayd, Bakr, Ahmad, Muhammad, and so on; then the doubts that arise confirm that they do not proceed from awareness, nor from intellect, nor from knowledge.