Discussion with the Kuwaiti student, and Shaykh Al-Albani’s explanation of the scholars’ division of jihad into defensive jihad and offensive jihad.

The Shaykh : I want to say here two things. The first thing concerns the reader. When he reads, and I say now, he assumes that this author denies jihad, even defensive jihad, because in the present day. And I will give you the answer in my way, not in your way. In the present day, Islamic writers know that the scholars divide jihad into two parts: defensive jihad and offensive jihad. They deny this second type, and those who deny it are not right up to this point, not right.
The student : Okay.

The Shaykh : Is it clear, or is there something?
The student : If you could repeat it, our Shaykh, because hehehe.

The Shaykh : Heh.
The student : Better, so that I can be certain.

The Shaykh : Okay, this is what I want.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : So that I do not build castles on the edge of a precipice.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : The scholars whose knowledge is trusted divide jihad into two parts: defensive jihad and offensive jihad. Defensive jihad is when the Muslims are attacked by the disbelievers; it is obligatory for all Muslims to repel this attack by the disbelievers. This is an individual obligation. If it is not achieved except by the collective of Muslims, this defensive jihad... The second jihad is offensive jihad, which is intended for the Muslims to attack the lands of the disbelievers, these lands that are adjacent to their lands, in order to convey the Islamic call to the disbelieving land. This is a collective obligation. If some people perform it, it drops from the rest. This is what the Muslims continued to do for ten centuries and more; they were always doing it until they reached, as you know, Andalusia, China, and so on. This offensive jihad is a collective obligation. Defending oneself, as I hinted to you earlier with the hadith, is well known . I do not imagine a Muslim, even if he is a beginner in the knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, denying such a jihad. So how do you imagine, may Allah bless you, that a brother like Abu Malik denies the obligation of fighting the Jews who occupied the lands of the Muslims? How do you imagine this? How do you imagine Abu Malik saying: It is not obligatory to fight the Serbs who attacked the lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina? And so on. This is not something you should see in a dream, nor should you imagine it while awake. But I believe the motive for this is one of two things, and the sweeter of them is bitter: either haste, or bad suspicion of the Muslim brother. So now, you.
The student : I can add a third possibility.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The student : Which is that the error might be in the expression by the author.

The Shaykh : I did not add anything; 'Ukkashah got there before you.
Yes.
The student : I say, meaning, from the standpoint of bad suspicion, this.

The Shaykh : No, but allow me.
The student : No, Shaykh, it is not bad intent. I did not intend bad intent.

The Shaykh : My brother, what is your connection to having intended bad intent? I told you this is your understanding, not his expression.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : I said finally, and even if I did not want to raise the discussion, it seems that this is your understanding. Nevertheless, I did not cast blame on your understanding. I said the expression might be deficient. I forgot this statement.
The student : No, I did not forget.

The Shaykh : Then I did not add anything.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : I merely repeated something that 'Ukkashah had already mentioned, correct.
The student: Yes.