Commentary on a speech and explaining the importance of adhering to the methodology of the Salaf in understanding the Book and the Sunnah, and that this is a characteristic of the Salafi call.

The Shaykh : ... those who were known for adhering to the Salafi call, but who on the other hand claimed affiliation with some Islamic parties. I decided to let you hear this man’s opinion on one aspect of the Salafi call; because, as it is said, things are distinguished by their opposites. This is especially true when accompanied by correct commentary and guidance, particularly since his speech included criticism of some of the Salafi preachers. I say, and the truth is the truth: this criticism is well-placed. Therefore, we must all take a lesson from this criticism. Whoever feels that he has some of what was criticized must correct himself and conduct himself with the etiquette of that critic; because, in reality, he said nothing but the truth, even though he went astray from the right path on another level. Therefore, I decided to make my speech today, though it is short and suited to this faint voice, a commentary on this speech so that we may increase in certainty of the correctness of what we are upon, and distance ourselves from any error in which one of us may have fallen.
The person referred to—and I do not wish to name him, as this is a private address, though perhaps one day I or he may be forced to expose it, in which case we will publish the matter openly—said, having spoken on the occasion about sectarianism and non-sectarianism: "What I understand in this regard is that students of knowledge, and indeed researchers, must make their reference in every matter the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), without severing their connection to the independent legal reasoning of the imams in understanding the evidence from the two revelations. In this way, they would be like students of natural and mathematical sciences who benefit from the efforts of those who came before them on that path, after being certain of the validity of their achievements. If they had neglected the efforts of their predecessors and not benefited from them, starting from scratch, the progress of civilization would have stopped at its primitive limits."
This is correct and sound speech. I have said more than once that the example of one who wants—and this exists among the extremists in every call, every sect, and every group, there are always extremists—to be discerning in his religion and rely on the Book of his Lord and the Sunnah of his Prophet, relying only on the Qur'an, placing it before him, and on the books of hadith, spreading them out and reading them, without seeking help in understanding the Book from books of exegesis, neither old nor new, and without seeking help in understanding those hadiths, or in distinguishing the authentic from the defective, from the combined efforts of the scholars of hadith over the past ten centuries or so; if a person were to take this path, to be independent in understanding the Book and the Sunnah relying only on the Book and the Sunnah without the aid of the efforts of the preceding imams, he would go astray far away, and would indeed bring about a new religion.
I do not want to take you far away; I will give you a close example, one we feel in our town. There were people who belonged to a group of the Sufis, and then the people of this group split into two factions. One of these two factions had a shaykh who knew nothing of the sciences of the Shari'ah, neither Book nor Sunnah, neither principles of jurisprudence nor principles of hadith nor principles of language, nor anything of that sort. He would interpret the Qur'an in an arbitrary manner with no standard. This interpretation is of the known type found in the exegesis of the old and new Batiniyyah and Qaramitah, and in the manner of the extremist Sufis who also interpret the Qur'anic verses without regard for linguistic or legal rules. We used to hear for many years from some of the shaykhs who have passed away that he would say to his followers: "Do you know why Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said to Moses: ?" They would say to the shaykh: "We do not know." When he said to him: , it is not the staff, but rather the world, meaning the world. He interprets the verse in this arbitrary manner. And so we find in the depths of the books, whether regarding the extremist Batiniyyah and their like whom we mentioned, interpretations with no standard and no rules.
Today, such a catastrophe exists here; they interpret the Qur'an, bringing up things that are absolutely new and have no connection to Islam. Some of it denies established legal realities, such as intercession, which is established in the Book and the Sunnah. They make the meaning of intercession the cooperation of two people with each other here in good or evil. As for there being intercession in the Hereafter, which is established by the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, they also deny this.
So I say: this is a new example, but the old examples are numerous, and they are gathered under either the extremist Sufis or the Qaramitah and Batiniyyah, which have split into many parties. Therefore, it is necessary to seek the aid of the efforts of the preceding imams, each in his specialty: in exegesis, in hadith, in jurisprudence, in grammar, and so on. I used to say: the example of one who wants to suffice with referring only to the Book and the Sunnah without benefiting from the efforts of the imams is like a person today who wants to invent the biggest and most precise airplane that has ever come out, after the successive efforts of hundreds, or even thousands, of specialists in various sciences. A person now wants, with his mind, to produce an airplane—I do not say like one, but bigger, larger, and more precise. What will be the fate of this person? His fate will be the fate of the first Arab Andalusian who thought of inventing the airplane before it existed. His fate was a natural one: he fell on his head. But he is not to be blamed, for he was the first pioneer who wanted to break the path to this great invention.
So the example of one who wants to exert independent legal reasoning in the Book and the Sunnah without seeking the aid of the imams in everything, each in his specialty as we said, is like one who wants to invent an airplane now, or rather, wants to invent a machine to make a needle. What is the value of the needle that women use for sewing? He cannot produce it except perhaps after long efforts, and perhaps his son will come and inherit something of the machine, and it will not be finished, and it is a machine for making a needle! Therefore, it is not only foolishness, but disbelief in the blessings of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) upon the Muslim community, who made those imams available to it, each in his specialty, besides the foolishness resulting from not seeking the aid of the efforts of the predecessors in this greatest field, which is the field of understanding the Book and the Sunnah. Therefore, what this writer said here is the truth, and it must be firmly established in the minds of every individual among the Salafis, whether they are preachers to the true Salafi call or followers, that knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah cannot be attained in the correct manner except by referring to expertise in every discipline and every science.
This delay was for the sake of the lines you heard from the brother the writer. He said, in the fullness of his previous speech: "And I am certain that you are not far from this path, for in everything you call to, you do not neglect the outputs of the schools of thought, but rather you discuss their evidence in the light of the two infallible sources—meaning the Book and the Sunnah—and that is the path of the people of understanding who understand the schools of thought as means to reach the truth, not as some rigid people understand them to be the religion which is the truth." This, too, is beautiful and true speech, and this is the difference between us and the sectarians.
We say: the schools of jurisprudence, the imams of the schools, and the scholars of the schools are means, not ends. They are means to convey the Shari'ah, which derives from the Book and the Sunnah, to those who do not know. If it becomes clear to these people who do not know, even in a single issue, that a scholar from among those whom we consider means and intermediaries for transmitting the rulings of the Book and the Sunnah to us has erred in a matter, then if the follower of a school clings to this scholar's opinion after his error has been established, he has turned the means into an end. That is, he has made this scholar as if he is the one intended to be followed, whereas the truth is that he is a means to guide us to the one who is actually intended to be followed. And from among the people, only the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is the one intended to be followed.
If some rigid Muslims persist in following a school by turning this means into an end, this is clear misguidance. This type of believer in every religion, in every faith, is the one to whom the Lord of the Worlds referred when He said in His Noble Book regarding the Christians in wording and regarding everyone who imitates them in meaning: ; so there is no difference in this respect, in terms of turning the truth upside down and making the means an end, between a Christian in the past who would treat the word of the priest as if it were heavenly revelation, and he knows—I say he knows—that this Christian who treats the word of the priest as if it were heavenly revelation knows that his word contradicts the Holy Book in his possession, yet he continues to cling to the words of his priest and turns away from the words of his Lord. Likewise, the Muslim is not excused by saying, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," while he continues to cling to the word of his imitator—meaning his scholar—who transmitted to him a wrong fatwa, and it has become clear to this imitator that it is an error, yet he persists in imitating that scholar and turns away from following the Book and the Sunnah, and he knows. So I repeat: and he knows; so that the malicious do not find a handle in our words to cling to, to say—and they have said—that we declare imitators disbelievers.
And we say, with regret, that today we say this in our public lectures and private gatherings: there is no way today—regrettably—to correct knowledge except through the path of taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence). After that, our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) opens up insight for those who know from it the struggle and independent legal reasoning in the path of knowing the truth and following it, as He (the Exalted) said: . As for the beginning of the path today, there is nothing other than the path of taqlid. The general principles of the Shari'ah today, which are supposed to have risen and elevated themselves above this low point, which is the path of taqlid, to at least the level of following, and we do not say to the level of independent legal reasoning; these general principles still study Islamic jurisprudence in the manner of taqlid...
And there is an intermediate degree between this taqlid and following, which they call today comparative jurisprudence; and that is that the professor of the subject presents the evidence of the different opinions in a single issue in an absolutely abstract manner; meaning, as if he is a man with no connection to Islam at all, like a secular man who has no bias toward one of these opinions or one of these schools; so he transmits with complete honesty; he says: such a school says, its evidence is such and such, and such a school, and finally he ends without saying that the word of truth and correctness is such and such; because the first evidence in the first opinion is the refutation of it, such and such, and so on. He presents it and leaves the students of the Faculty of Sharia, who will graduate soon and become doctors in what? In the science of Sharia, who do not understand anything except transmission only. This is the state of the doctors of the end of time.
Therefore, it was hoped that these faculties would rise and elevate themselves above this level, but perhaps, as they say, "The first of the rain is a drop, then it pours down." Before, they studied one book in one school of jurisprudence, the Hanafi school, and that was the end of the matter. Now they have come to study more than one school, and this study undoubtedly opens up minds and broadens the scientific horizons in the minds of the students. We know in our Albanian country that they do not know Islam except as the Hanafi school only. So when one of them comes here... he finds Muslim Shafi'is, Muslim Malikis; so he knows at that time something he was ignorant of before, and consequently he will know from their evidence, and then they will also say: Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said, and so on!! Perhaps this study, which they call the study of comparative jurisprudence, has something after it; because the Sunnah of Allah in His creation is that the goal cannot be reached except in a gradual way, step by step. This is the Sunnah of Allah.
I say finally: the writer here rightly points out that turning the means into an end, and making the school intended in itself; this is turning the legal truth upside down. So he explicitly states the truth that students of knowledge, and especially the researchers among them, have their path in returning to the Book and the Sunnah. So his words up to this point are entirely free from any blemish. Rather, he is conveying our idea, which we always lecture about in every place we settle. However, what needs some comment, while acknowledging some truth in his following words, is what he began with a correction by saying: "But have you been able to focus this correct concept in the hearts of those who claim to follow your path?" Whether we were able to or not, I want to remind now, and I will naturally write to this brother the writer that the question is wrong; why? Because as long as he affirms that our path is truth and correctness, and that he explicitly states that we always, when we call to the Book and the Sunnah, do not waste the efforts of the imams on us, but rather we benefit from them and present their evidence and discuss it, at the same time he says: "Have you been able to?"
I will say with complete frankness: I was not able to do anything. Suppose that is the case, I was not able to do anything, and there is absolutely no one around me whom I was able to, and he was able with me, to focus this correct method in his mind and in his starting point in his calling. Suppose that is the case; so what does that mean? If the method itself is truth by his admission, and then I failed to focus it in the minds of those I always and forever call to it, I say: either they understand what I have, and as I would naturally like this, or I am unable to communicate with people as some opponents falsely and oppressively and unjustly say that I am not good at speaking the Arabic language. Well, you are now hearing me speak in the Albanian language. It is also possible that the matter is that I am unable to speak with our Arab brothers in their Arabic language. There must be something, and it may be in inability, it may be in weakness; we cannot deny this at all. But let us ask: is not my inability met by weakness on the other side, turning away, or rejection, or malice, or more, and so on?
Of course, no one can deny this. We are here reminding this writer and many others like him. In fact, I have seen that this man is, for the first time, making explicit what we have always and forever said: that other Islamic preachers have found that the Salafi call is a call to the truth; therefore, they believed in it in their hearts with true faith, and then they apply from it only to the extent that their party methodology and their system of preaching allow. The following reality becomes clear, which we always and forever say, and now he writes it: “These people adopt the call for themselves, not to call Muslims to it.” Why? Because in reality, this call distinguishes between the truth and falsehood. This is a reality that every Muslim sincere in his allegiance to the Book and the Sunnah must know. But within this reality, or beneath it, lies another reality that many do not notice. When we say that the Salafi call distinguishes between the truth and falsehood, we must keep in mind the connection between the truth and its holder, and between falsehood and its holder. Do you understand this statement?
We must connect the truth with its holder and falsehood with its holder. The reality is that, as the common people say, the truth is sometimes covered by a thin layer, and this matter is of that nature. When we say that the call—we say the Salafi call, while others say the Islamic call—we have an opinion on this qualifier, which many may not understand, and I am not addressing it now. This is because the Islamic call encompasses all schools of jurisprudence, all sects, and all groups. As for the Salafi call, it encompasses one group only, about whom the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: . All holders of calls, whatever their names, agree with us completely that the call is the call of Islam, the Salafi call, which is the origin of Islam, and it distinguishes between the truth and falsehood. It does not accept discussion. There is no word that distinguishes between the one who is right and the one who is wrong as if we are saying something new.
Here is the point of my previous statement. That is, if there are two brothers, one of whom is right and the other is wrong, the first holding fast to the true call and the other holding fast to the false call, they must separate. Islamic history is the greatest witness to this, because when Islam came, it separated the father from the son. Why? Because the son believed and the father disbelieved, or the reverse. This happened, and this happened.
Therefore, it is among the descriptions of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in the authentic Sunnah that he is the one who separates; meaning, he separates between the truth and falsehood, and between those who are right and those who are wrong. This is one of the characteristics of the Salafi call. So when a person adopts it who has a methodology that requires his speech not to call for division, not to call for the truth, meaning, when his speech pleases everyone, it means that he has not spoken the truth. This is the way of everyone; I do not exclude anyone. Our duty is to be frank with all our Muslim brothers, to be frank with them about what we believe. Then, if it becomes clear to them that it is the truth, they must follow it. And if it becomes clear to them that it is error, they must point it out, so that we will be with them in avoiding it.
We say: Every Islamic call that is based on pure aggregation, on increasing in numbers, and on gaining many votes in electoral councils; this is not an Islamic way. Why? For many reasons, the clearest of which is what we are in now. Those who want to gain many votes must fulfill their promise to the large masses; they must do so, otherwise they will lose the battle. If the battle is based on the number of votes, then they will lose it. So they are between two things: either they remain on this path which we see as contrary to the truth, because the truth is clear in its truth, , , and so on.
So either he takes this path, in which case he does not care whether he was able to establish an organization? Whether he was able to aggregate? Whether he was able to explain the idea to a large or small group, or whether he was not able to do so for a small or large group? It does not matter to him; because he is tasked with conveying the call to the truth. Then, the people he calls may have good in them, love the truth, and seek it, and they will respond to the call to the truth. Or there may be no good in them—may Allah forbid—then the blame is not on the caller to the truth, let alone on the call to the truth, but on those who were called and did not respond.
We know from the Noble Qur'an that Noah (peace and blessings be upon him) remained among his people for a thousand years except fifty years. What did he do in the thousand years? It is a very strange thing. He called to Allah, and to what? He called to a matter in which all people should be on one word, which is: , , . After what? A thousand years except fifty years. And he is a Messenger, the first Messenger sent to the people of the earth. This means that, as the scholars say, he is from the resolute among the Messengers; meaning, revelation is sent to him from the sky, meaning he is guided and corrected in his steps; whether it was...