The statement regarding the delegation sent to Qaddafi to establish the argument against him in his claim that "Islam is the Qur'an alone, and the Sunnah is not a proof because things that are not part of it have entered it"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Another group. I have heard, or it has been reported to me, that an Islamic party sent a delegation to Qaddafi to debate him on this terrible bomb he has thrown into the Muslim community when he claimed that Islam is the Qur'an alone and that we do not give weight to the Sunnah because things that are not part of it have entered it, and the true has been mixed with the false, the sound with the defective, and so on. They went to establish the argument against him that Islam is not just the Qur'an, but the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is, without a doubt, our call, as you all know. But what was the result of this discussion? It appears that the bulletin we referred to did not mention at all the discussion that took place between Qaddafi and them. Rather, after they left him, they sent him, as is their custom, a statement or bulletin. In this statement, they repeat the previous word of truth that Islam is the Book and the Sunnah. But look at what deviation from the methodology of the Salaf al-Salih does in another aspect. They mentioned in this bulletin, which they sent just now, a total and radical rejection of the Sunnah. They said that the Sunnah has two parts: a part that is mutawatir (mass-transmitted) and a part that is ahad (limited chain). The ahad part is not a proof in 'aqidah (creed), but only a proof in legal rulings. This is a door they present as a ready meal for Qaddafi to doubt the entire Sunnah, because this philosophy is not accepted by this man, who has completely distanced himself from the Sunnah. We do not accept this philosophy, and we have clarified our position on this. Why do you reject ahad hadith in legal rulings, and every ruling?
The questioner : In 'aqidah (creed)
The Shaykh : In 'aqidah (creed), why do you reject ahad hadith in 'aqidah? And every legal ruling that you make obligatory to follow is based on ahad hadith, and in it there is also 'aqidah. Every legal ruling includes 'aqidah. So the result of this negligence is either that you reject the entire Sunnah, or that you accept it all without this negligence. You rejected ahad hadith in 'aqidah because, they claim, 'aqidah is not built on conjecture, but on certainty. Well, then reject this Sunnah in ahad, in the rulings as well, because every ruling includes 'aqidah. And I think this is not hidden when you say "Allah has forbidden this," are you not saying about Allah that Allah has forbidden it? So you believe that Allah has forbidden this, obligated this, and permitted this. These are all matters of 'aqidah. Therefore, this philosophy which they claimed and followed in that, like the people of the Mu'tazilah in the past and present, will never help them, and will never help them at all, to establish the argument against a person who rejected the Sunnah absolutely. Rather, we say "By their fruits you will know them". We say that the fruit of this negligence between the Sunnah of ahad and the Sunnah of mutawatir is that it bears this bitter fruit: that this man declares against Islam... that we do not adopt the Sunnah, only the Qur'an. And this means abolishing Islam from its root, especially since Qaddafi has established the group for forty years, and you know some of them in Aleppo, and their origin is in Egypt. They were influenced by propaganda from India, the source of many fitnah (trials), who call these people "Quranists." And two years ago... a person here, an Egyptian who memorized the Qur'an by heart, from these Quranists, does not recognize the Sunnah at all. We debated with him a little, then he turned away and they returned. The point is that these people went to establish the argument against a person, while they themselves are held back in their own selves. This is a point and a lesson.
The last point, and I am against the direction of... this article. Finally, in... the referenced [text], they asked Qaddafi to hand over the rule to them. Do you think if he handed over the rule to them, what would they do? The people are not cultured, not raised on Islamic upbringing, and this people are very lagging behind some Muslim peoples, like the Syrian people, for example. So if we assume that this means riding the impossible and he handed over the rule to them, what can they do? Nothing. What indicates this? This indicates that the methodology of these people who ask for the rule from a person who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, do not adopt the first step that this writer called for, which is that we realize the Muslim society in our lives, in our transactions, in our families, in... and so on. Because this, in reality, truly prepares the atmosphere for the ruler if he wants to apply the Islamic state.
I say, for example, if people adopted ruling by Islam and orders were issued one after another: it is forbidden for a woman to go out in tabarruj (display of adornment), it is forbidden to enter cinemas, it is forbidden such and such. Who are the individuals who will apply these laws? Are they those who were originally raised on Islam? Or take the Islamic law and go apply it in Europe in one leap? This is truly impossible. But the atmosphere must be prepared for this. But not as our friend says, preparing the atmosphere one hundred percent, one hundred percent. This is impossible. So whatever of the legal rulings can be applied, we are satisfied with it and we do not wait at all. This is a gain and a profit. But this does not carry us, as these people do and continue to do, to the belief that the society cannot be reformed except by establishing the Muslim state. Well, who establishes the Muslim state? True Muslims or geographical Muslims?
This is a lesson and a reminder, and the reminder benefits the Muslims, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
The questioner : The Islamic state...
The Shaykh : ... .
The questioner : In 'aqidah (creed)
The Shaykh : In 'aqidah (creed), why do you reject ahad hadith in 'aqidah? And every legal ruling that you make obligatory to follow is based on ahad hadith, and in it there is also 'aqidah. Every legal ruling includes 'aqidah. So the result of this negligence is either that you reject the entire Sunnah, or that you accept it all without this negligence. You rejected ahad hadith in 'aqidah because, they claim, 'aqidah is not built on conjecture, but on certainty. Well, then reject this Sunnah in ahad, in the rulings as well, because every ruling includes 'aqidah. And I think this is not hidden when you say "Allah has forbidden this," are you not saying about Allah that Allah has forbidden it? So you believe that Allah has forbidden this, obligated this, and permitted this. These are all matters of 'aqidah. Therefore, this philosophy which they claimed and followed in that, like the people of the Mu'tazilah in the past and present, will never help them, and will never help them at all, to establish the argument against a person who rejected the Sunnah absolutely. Rather, we say "By their fruits you will know them". We say that the fruit of this negligence between the Sunnah of ahad and the Sunnah of mutawatir is that it bears this bitter fruit: that this man declares against Islam... that we do not adopt the Sunnah, only the Qur'an. And this means abolishing Islam from its root, especially since Qaddafi has established the group for forty years, and you know some of them in Aleppo, and their origin is in Egypt. They were influenced by propaganda from India, the source of many fitnah (trials), who call these people "Quranists." And two years ago... a person here, an Egyptian who memorized the Qur'an by heart, from these Quranists, does not recognize the Sunnah at all. We debated with him a little, then he turned away and they returned. The point is that these people went to establish the argument against a person, while they themselves are held back in their own selves. This is a point and a lesson.
The last point, and I am against the direction of... this article. Finally, in... the referenced [text], they asked Qaddafi to hand over the rule to them. Do you think if he handed over the rule to them, what would they do? The people are not cultured, not raised on Islamic upbringing, and this people are very lagging behind some Muslim peoples, like the Syrian people, for example. So if we assume that this means riding the impossible and he handed over the rule to them, what can they do? Nothing. What indicates this? This indicates that the methodology of these people who ask for the rule from a person who rules by other than what Allah has revealed, do not adopt the first step that this writer called for, which is that we realize the Muslim society in our lives, in our transactions, in our families, in... and so on. Because this, in reality, truly prepares the atmosphere for the ruler if he wants to apply the Islamic state.
I say, for example, if people adopted ruling by Islam and orders were issued one after another: it is forbidden for a woman to go out in tabarruj (display of adornment), it is forbidden to enter cinemas, it is forbidden such and such. Who are the individuals who will apply these laws? Are they those who were originally raised on Islam? Or take the Islamic law and go apply it in Europe in one leap? This is truly impossible. But the atmosphere must be prepared for this. But not as our friend says, preparing the atmosphere one hundred percent, one hundred percent. This is impossible. So whatever of the legal rulings can be applied, we are satisfied with it and we do not wait at all. This is a gain and a profit. But this does not carry us, as these people do and continue to do, to the belief that the society cannot be reformed except by establishing the Muslim state. Well, who establishes the Muslim state? True Muslims or geographical Muslims?
This is a lesson and a reminder, and the reminder benefits the Muslims, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
The questioner : The Islamic state...
The Shaykh : ... .