Continuation of the Shaykh’s response to statements found in one of the books of the moderns, which are erroneous concepts regarding the Salafi call.

The Shaykh : We said: He says: "And there is no disagreement between us that the majority of Muslims, those to whom the description of seeking knowledge or scholarly investigation does not apply, are not obligated with a responsibility like that of those who distinguish themselves." He had mentioned in the previous lesson a description of the Salafi call, that they call for following the Book and the Sunnah, and that they study the four schools of jurisprudence and discuss their evidence, and described this call as a call to the truth. But now we want to clarify that this work, which scholarly investigation requires, is not something the general public can do. This is a correct statement, but what he built upon it is not correct, as you will hear.
Therefore he says: "And there is no disagreement between us that the majority of Muslims, those to whom the description of seeking knowledge or scholarly investigation does not apply, are not obligated with a responsibility like that of those who distinguish themselves." Here is the point regarding the danger of his words. He said: "So their call to abandoning the schools of jurisprudence is nothing but luring them into doubt about the religion itself, and this is sufficient to misguide them and push the whole of them into the abyss of loss. On this basis, we interpret the position of al-Bouti and al-Hamid (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding non-sectarianism, considering it, in this perspective, a danger that threatens the Islamic Shari'ah."
This book—regrettably—agrees with the Salafis on the entire line at the beginning of the speech, and at the end of the speech departs from them on the entire line. The reason for this goes back to one thing... which is that the Salafi call, being by nature the correct concept of Islam, and Islam being in reality a comprehensive religion for all of humanity in every time and place; the Salafi call is, by nature, not exclusive to a group of Muslims to the exclusion of others. Rather, it calls all people just as Islam calls; because the Salafi call is Islam in the correct concept; so it calls all Muslims to hold fast to their Islam. It does not restrict the Islamic call to a group to the exclusion of another. It does not distinguish, in terms of calling to follow the Book and the Sunnah, between the educated and the uneducated, between the learned and the unlearned. It calls all categories and all individuals to be sincere to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in their worship and to their Prophet in following him.
All Muslims must participate in this. So now we hear a new tone. And this writer—also—is one of the problems surrounding the Salafi call: he belongs to the Salafi call, and now he writes... differentiation. The reason for this differentiation goes back to the fact that there are people who preceded the Salafi call by belonging to another party or group that does not adopt the Salafi call as their school and methodology. They were preceded, or they preceded the Salafi call, and they belonged to a party and were cultured with its culture. Most of these parties, as we spoke in some detail in our commentary on the previous word in the last lesson, are based on gathering, clustering, and increasing the masses, and not on cultural enrichment and understanding the religion. When the Salafi call comes to one of these individuals, he is pleased by its purity, clarity, and strength of its arguments, so he adopts it in general. But what he had previously adopted, which was the adoption of another call based on clustering and partisanship, does not allow this clustering and partisanship, in terms of reality, room for the Salafi call to enter the core of his heart and control all his senses and all his actions. So you find that he is, on one hand, a Salafi, and on the other hand, not a Salafi; rather, he is against Salafism.
And this is an example we were talking about before we read it written down as it is now. We were reading it in the actions of some of these people. We find one of them living while claiming Salafism, but no one benefits from his call, or, yes, no one benefits from his adoption of the Salafi call from those around him except for something that is barely mentioned. Why? He does not call to the Salafi call; so he carried it for himself and his person only. As for the thing he calls to, he is eager and diligent in calling to it, and it is this clustering and partisanship on general Islamic concepts that do not clarify Islam to its adopter in its correct form as it came in the Book and the Sunnah. This clustering and partisanship does not allow room for the spread of the Salafi call among all strata of the Ummah and its individuals; because this contradicts clustering and partisanship, as we explained this in the last lesson; because when we say:
"This is the truth, there is no obscurity in it *** So leave me alone from the paths of the people"
One will separate from the other, and the brother from his brother; and this contradicts clustering.
Therefore—and peace be upon you—therefore, there are people who are half Salafi and half partisan. The first half is with regard to his person and his self, and the other half is with regard to the society in which he lives. So in his society, he is not a Salafi; therefore, he wants to leave the general people, as you heard, and the general people are the overwhelming majority of Muslims by nature. He wants to leave them holding fast to their schools of jurisprudence and not call them to follow the Book and the Sunnah; because, in his claim, this is a call for them to a labyrinth, to misguidance, and to gradualism and exiting the religion, may Allah protect us from that (the Exalted).
We want to clarify the difference between the Salafi call in its reality and the Salafi call within the limits of what some of its members from the Islamic parties can bear. We agree with everyone... in one reality, and then we differ in the detailed method of calling to it... in order to achieve it. We all agree that it is obligatory for Muslims to resume Islamic life. This is a common word between us and them. We all say: We must resume Islamic life. But I am now asking, within the limits of what we were reading in their societies and what we are reading now embodied in these lines before us, who represents the Islamic society? Are they only a few counted individuals in every region and every country, or are they these Muslims, between the scholar and the student and the illiterate who cannot read or write? There is no doubt that this last answer is what represents the Islamic society. So if we truly want to cooperate on resuming Islamic life; does this require that we divide people into two groups? A group we culture with the correct culture—and it is nothing but the Salafi call, by the admission of this writer—and the other group—and it is the majority—we leave as they are?
And the meaning of this is that we leave them, first, in ignorance; because as long as we call the first group, which is the elite and distinguished group of Muslims, to follow the truth—that is, the Book and the Sunnah—and we do not call the public; the meaning of that is that we leave these people in their ignorance and their error, and even in their misguidance. And not only this; but we leave them in their differences and their severe disputes, one of the effects of which is that many of them are hesitant to have a Muslim pray behind his Muslim brother on the pretext that his school of jurisprudence is contrary to my school. And to this day, you find the matter apparent in the refusal of many followers, and even imitators, of the schools of jurisprudence to pray behind one who calls for following the Book and the Sunnah. This is a phenomenon we see in many and very many occasions. When it is said to these people: Are the Salafis disbelievers? They say: No, these are innovators. Okay, so is praying behind innovators permissible in the school or not? It is permissible. And they argue with a hadith that we weaken in terms of narration, and we authenticate in terms of understanding; which is: , so they narrate this hadith and then contradict it and do not act upon it, and all the schools of jurisprudence are based upon it.
The point is: this writer here wants us to leave the masses of Muslims in their ignorance, in their error, and in their division. Is this the Islam that says: ? Does the Islam that calls all sects to unite, to support one another, and not to divide, itself divide among the few Muslims? These are the only ones called, while the majority of Muslims are left as they are? No Muslim who has understood the call of the Book and the Sunnah correctly would say this.