The discussion on the deviation of the activists and the Muslim Brotherhood

The Shaykh: Yes, because this activist foundation is a movement that leaves people in their confusion and in their distance from the Book and the Sunnah, especially in matters of creed, let alone worship and conduct. In my opinion, this movement is what is referred to in some military terminology in some Arab countries as "stay in place and march." This phrase means that when the soldiers are marching in military step, the sergeant or commander calls out to them, "Stay in place and march." What do these soldiers do?

The questioner: They move while standing still.

The Shaykh: They move while remaining in place.

The questioner: It is said, "Stay in place and march."

The Shaykh : Stay in your place.

The questioner: "March" means walk like this.

The Shaykh: Yes, the meaning is the same. So, these activists have been around for nearly sixty or seventy years and have gained absolutely nothing from the movement they boast about. It is true that they stirred the emotions and feelings of Muslims, but they did not rectify the corruption of their deviation from the religion, neither in creed, nor in worship, nor in conduct. There is no doubt that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke about the strangeness of the religion and consoled the strangers with his saying: He described them with two characteristics, and there is a third characteristic, but there is some weakness in its chain, so we will not dwell on it. These two characteristics are established from the Messenger (peace be upon him) and do not apply to these activists at all, not even one of them. As for the first, when he (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him) was asked about the strangers, he said: .

The questioner: Allahu Akbar.

The Shaykh: So, the activist preachers call people to movement, and this is an easy matter. But the call to conscious movement does not exist among them.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Yes, indeed. So, his saying (peace be upon him): , and you will find that in most Islamic countries, these activists' leader differs from his subordinates in every way. For example, the leader in some countries may be close to the Sunnah.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Close to the Sunnah, and I do not say "upon" the Sunnah. But you will find that those who fall under his call or his banner—if the expression is correct—differ from him in every way. This phenomenon, glory be to Allah, is sufficient to make clear to anyone who seeks knowledge and guidance that, my brothers, what does it mean for the leader to be of one form and pattern, while the subordinates, who are the overwhelming majority, differ from this leader in every way? It means that the leader is not calling them to guidance, but rather to what they call "clustering" and "gathering." Glory be to Allah, this reminds me of a story that happened to me with a Lebanese Maronite priest. The story is long, but the point is that I inquired in his presence about Islam and the virtue of Islam, and how it saved the Arabs from the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, from shirk (associating partners with Allah) to guidance and light, and so on. He even refined the Muslims medically in the name of religion, forbidding them to drink from the chipped edge of a vessel.

The questioner: Allah is the Greatest! Yes.

The Shaykh: This is Prophetic medicine that Muslims only know as a religious ruling. Now the secret has been revealed: in this small chip, there are microorganisms, fine germs.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: They are not visible except with a magnifier.

The questioner: With a magnifier, yes.

The Shaykh: Therefore, Muslims are healthier in body than disbelievers because they obey the commands of the Shari'ah. They do not drink intoxicants, they do not smoke, and they do not even drink from the chipped edge of a cup. Even this priest felt it. I noticed I wanted him to speak, so he fell silent and then began to speak. The speech was long, and we are not now in a position to discuss it, until the conversation reached Ataturk.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: This Turkish atheist said, "What is wrong with imposing the beret on the Turkish people? This is a national garment, this is a national garment." I gave a lecture here on , and I mentioned to him what our sociologists say, that preserving customs, traditions, history, and language is among the components of peoples.

The questioner: Heritage.

The Shaykh: And this is a Muslim among them. Yes, indeed. After this speech of mine, and he was a Maronite priest, his entire attire was black: a long, wide robe and a black cap. I said, "If clothing has no relation to religion, do I understand from your words that if you remove this cap and put on a red fez with a white turban on top, there is no objection on your part?" He said, "No, no, no." I said, "Why?" He said, "This is clothing that has no relation to religion." He said, "No, we are men of religion." I said, "This is the difference between us and you. You, the Christians, are of two types, and here is the point: men of religion and men of no religion. As for Muslims, every one of them is a man of religion. There is no difference between the scholar, the student of knowledge, and the ignorant; they are all men of religion clinging to the religion. What is obligatory for the elder is obligatory for the younger; what is forbidden for this one is forbidden for that one, and so on. So, Islam, or Muslims, may Allah have mercy on you, are all equal like the teeth of a comb. Now you find these activists in various shapes and colors: one with a beard, one with a short beard, one with a beard in the manner of the Salafis, "the best of beards is the one that is trimmed," with a machine. Some have no beard and no mustache. Some have a mustache that, as we used to say in Damascus, is "two flies." Just like that. They compared this to the comical character Arsen Lupin, who existed in America in our time, with stories of "two flies" like that, or Hitler, and so on. All of these are Muslims, but you find them in various shapes and colors. Why? Because they do not have a unity of thought, a unity of call. They are just clusters. Then what do they say? "Clusters, then culture, then no culture at all." In these seventy years, you do not find a man among them who understands creed unless Allah provides him with a group of Salafis to connect with, and he benefits from their knowledge and guidance. Then there is no thanks or gratitude. So, if these people praise a person for being an activist, or if we also need to talk about the term "fundamentalist." The word "fundamentalist" is a term coined by disbelievers and used for religious people, not for religious people in general, but for those they claim are extremists. But they do not mean that they are Salaf or Khalaf, or Muslim Brotherhood, or anyone who rebels against the rulers is a fundamentalist. We do not claim this. Therefore, I hesitate when they praise a writer or scholar as being Salafi when he is not. But if they praise him as being an activist or as being a fundamentalist, then it is incumbent upon us at that time to clarify what an activist means, and what is the benefit of this movement that has no fruit, and what a fundamentalist means. If the meaning of "fundamentalist" is, as the word "fundamentals" suggests, returning to the science of fundamentals, whether in the science of hadith or in the science of jurisprudence, then yes, that is what it is. But these Muslim Brothers do not return to either of these sciences at all. Therefore, we understand that the name "activist" or "fundamentalist" is not misleading for us, but for many people it is misleading. So clarification is necessary.