What is the ruling on belonging to and identifying with a specific shaykh, adopting a specific symbol and name for that purpose to distinguish oneself from others? And is it obligatory to combat such practices in order to return to the single name by which Allah named us, which is Islam and Muslims?

The questioner : This is our shaykh moving us to the second question, which is what you actually intended?

The Shaykh : Bring it.

The questioner : Now, many people, such as the followers of, for example, this group, have sanctified, for example,The Shaykh : Ilyas, who is the founder of this call, and the followers of another call have sanctified other people and followed them, considering them a man who must be followed and must be guided by. And every group has sought a name to call itself by, so that it distinguishes itself from the other groups. So should we not combat all these names and return to the name by which Allah the Exalted named us in the end of Surat al-Hajj We have found that the proliferation of methodologies and the proliferation of names has only increased the Muslims' distance from the Book and the Sunnah. If every Muslim's hope is to follow the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his sole goal is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then I believe it is possible for us to agree on one path. Should we not combat all these names and all these methodologies as well?

The Shaykh : First, may Allah reward you. We hear such a question from many of the groups you are referring to. Before the answer that I believe in, I say: Do names change the realities of the named things?

The questioner : The name

The Shaykh : I hope the answer is first clear and very concise. Do names change the realities of the named things? You may say what you wish, I am not imposing on you, I am only suggesting. Say: Yes or No?

The questioner : They do not change in the view of the sensible, but among the common people of the Ummah, they do not hold on to anything but the name. That is, many of those who belong to the call do not know about the call except its name, and in fact, they do not know who founded this call?

The Shaykh : You did not accept my suggestion, and you have your opinion.

The questioner : They do not change in reality, they do not change.

The Shaykh : Okay, you qualified it with "in the view of the sensible"?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Good. We say to our brothers who are afflicted with hesitation in coming to us, who are to your right and to your left, we say to them: In the Levant, we learned, "If it doesn't come to you, go to it." So you did not want to say yes or no, but you answered and added, "No problem," and you said, "The name does not change the realities of the named things in the view of the sensible." Okay, does the call benefit the sensible or the fools?

The questioner : The sensible.

The Shaykh : Then this qualification has no benefit from it. We return to saying: There is a phrase among the scholars of jurisprudence, "There is no dispute over terminology." What is your opinion of the phrase "There is no dispute over terminology"? I also hope your answer is in the suggested manner. I am not commanding you, you are free, but to save time, I hope this is reasonable speech. "There is no dispute over terminology," what is your opinion?

The questioner : Without a doubt, the terminological aspect.

The Shaykh : Stop, stop. You held the beginning of the path and deviated from brevity. Tell me, do you believe in this phrase or not, "There is no dispute over terminology"? What do we call this? A telephone

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is permissible for one to call it, for example, a rigid speaker.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : What does it matter to me? The important thing is that it performs the function that this name indicates. Correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : This is the meaning of "There is no dispute over terminology."

The questioner : Our shaykh, if you allow me?

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : We were in a dialogue, and I seek refuge in Allah, in a debate with Sufis in Pakistan, and they said, "We are Sufis without boxes of vows..."

The Shaykh : Oh professor, may Allah reward you. If you had walked with me, you would have been at ease and I would have been at ease.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Does Sufism indicate a methodology that Allah revealed?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Does Salafism indicate a methodology that Allah revealed?

The questioner : If Allah wills, that is so.

The Shaykh : Yes, may Allah reward you. What brought this to that?

The questioner : They said this phrase.

The Shaykh : What did they say?

The questioner : They said, "We do not hold on to any action of these people, but we declare them disbelievers and we doubt their religion."

The Shaykh : Who are these people?

The questioner : Those who circumambulate the shrines and make vows to other than Allah and seek help from other than Allah.

The Shaykh : No, stop, stop. Now we are in names. You returned to the principle of application. Give me a break.

The questioner : They said, "We mean that in everything other than this, we consider Sufism to be acting according to the Book and the Sunnah."

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah reward you. We brought you an example, "There is no dispute over terminology." But this terminology should indicate a truth that we believe in.

The questioner : And I want to learn how to respond to them in this?

The Shaykh : We are on this path, may Allah reward you.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And now, the first thing is what you heard from me when I asked, "Does Sufism indicate the methodology that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) brought and the righteous Salaf practiced?" You said frankly, "The Muslim says: No." But when you hear the word "Salafism," does it indicate acting according to the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous Salaf? You said, "Yes."

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So you say to them:
"This difference between us is enough for you *** And every vessel emits what is in it"
Sufism does not indicate a correct scientific methodology such that when we call people, they say, "Oh people, become Sufis with us. What is this Sufism? Is it acting according to the Book and the Sunnah?" They might say, "And all Muslims say so."

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And I will return to you with an answer to your question that you raised: Should we not agree to name ourselves as our Lord of the Worlds named us, Muslims, and abolish all these names? I could have said to you, "No. We abolish all names except one name. Today, it is Salafism." And the reason for this is that now Salafism indicates the correct scientific methodology, and whoever holds on to it in thought and acts according to it is guided by his Lord. As for any other name, call it whatever you wish, whether it is acceptable to people or rejected. For example, you find people who are madhhab-bound, Hanafi or Shafi'i, who disavow Sufism. Correct or not?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, but this madhhab-boundness does not mean holding on to the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous Salaf. So, no Hanafism, no Shafi'ism, no Maliki, no Hanbali, no anything except the one thing, which is the righteous Salaf. And whoever belongs to them is a Salafi. I say it is obligatory to abolish all these names because they do not indicate the methodology that, if the holder holds on to it, he will be saved by Allah, except this name. And now you say, and others say, "Why, my brother, these many names? It is enough for us to name ourselves Muslims." I say, and without blame, this is negligence, this is a formal following that does not indicate depth in thinking. Why? I do not think a sensible person would agree, for example, to erase from the Muslim society the affiliations that indicate the race or the country or the like. For example, I am Al-Albani, you are Egyptian, this one is Palestinian, and that one is Jordanian, and so on. I do not think anyone would consider that we should raise all these affiliations under the claim that they divide the Ummah. No, my brother, they do not divide the Ummah, because these affiliations do not conflict with the correct Islamic call that the Muslim must hold on to. And so there were Muhajireen and there were Ansar, and there were Medinans and there were Meccans, and there were tribal affiliations, and so on, to the known affiliations until today, and it is impossible to deny any of them absolutely. Why? Because they do not conflict with the true Islamic call. And if we know this rule, now the Muslims, as we all know, are scattered here and there, as came in the well-known hadith, "seventy-three sects, all in the Fire except one." In my belief, we all, each according to his culture and knowledge, believe that in the Muslim world today, in the Muslim society, there are many, and very many, sects, and all of them belong to Islam, is that not so?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Even, for example, if a Druze is told, "You are a disbeliever or a Muslim," what would he say?

The questioner : A Muslim.

The Shaykh : You want to say that if you are asked, you say, "I am a Muslim," and the Druze, if asked, says, "Muslim," and the Shi'i and the Zaydi and the Yazidi, and so on. Should the Muslim society be like this, lost in the correct proportion? The one who disbelieves in Allah and His Messenger and worships, for example, al-Hakim bi Amr Allah the Druze, we are satisfied that he said, "Muslim," and I say, "I am a Muslim," and that is it. Is this enough in our world today?

The questioner : This is not enough.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. That is what I expect of you. If we want to put a label on the saved group, pay attention, Professor. This is not the time for drowsiness. Pay attention. We must establish a scientific term, returning to the previous rule. Do you know what the previous rule is?

The questioner : The goal...

The Shaykh : No, that one has gone. The fiqh rule is that every group may agree on whatever they wish. So now, we must agree on a name that distinguishes the Muslim who follows the correct guidance from the Muslim who deviates from the correct guidance. Is this not a matter of dire necessity?

The questioner : I agree with you on this, my Shaykh, but with a small addition.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : In some places and in some countries, especially in... in Peshawar, the place where I currently live, the name alone is "the warrior." The correct Salafi methodology is known to Allah. The vast majority of people do not fight it. I am a man, by the grace of Allah the Exalted, who knows my methodology and believes in it, and I want to spread the methodology. Based on that, we decided to abolish all the names. And if all the methodologies come down to the market before the people, I know that this methodology will prevail, if Allah wills, Glorified and Exalted is He?

The Shaykh : You have abolished the truth with this. You knew the truth and abolished the truth, because as long as you believe that the Salafi methodology is the truth and the name indicating this truth is the truth, you equated this name indicating the truth with the name indicating other than the truth. This means that you wronged yourself before you wronged others. This is from one aspect. From another aspect, I said this when I was a professor at the Islamic University thirty years ago, because this Islamic University in the Holy City of Madinah gathered, and still gathers, people from various Islamic countries, including Arabs. I still remember the person, who is our friend now, meaning he raised this objection with me. He said to me, "My brother, why do you say Salafi and Salafis, and so on? By Allah, they called us Muslims, and he is from the Muslim Brotherhood." So I presented this introduction, and perhaps a longer one, and finally I say: I will walk with you on the Syrian rule mentioned above, "If you do not come to us, we will come to you." Abolish the Muslim Brotherhood, the Tahrir Party, the Youth of Muhammad, and the Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Maliki schools, and so on. And we come to your group, these are the Tabligh group. Abolish all these names, and we are with you in the introduction. It is He who named you Muslims. But do you ask us to abolish our methodology and the name expressing this correct methodology because it will repel people, while they are drowning in these false names, both the name and the named? This is not just in any way. Do you think that if you remain in this call—if you remain, and I do not say if you deviate—if you remain in this call, do you think that people will respond to you? These people who are fanatical about the schools and fanatical about the paths—I do not say the Naqshbandi, Qadiri, Shadhili, Khalwati, and Tijani, and names for which Allah has not sent down authority—will all these people respond to your call? So what remains before you is only your Salafi brothers, with whom you are on the line first, and then you argue with them about the name second. So the disagreement remains between you and them regarding the name. We tell you: You will not reach your desired goal, because those who deviate in name and named from the methodological line are further from responding than the Salafis. I tell you with complete frankness: if these people returned and did not affiliate with any sect, or any path, or any school, we must return as the methodology of the righteous Salaf was. And I say: Was there in the Salaf a Salafi Bakri? The answer is no. 'Amri? No. 'Amthani? No. 'Alawi? No. If we return, we say Muslims. But when our society now, which numbers so many millions, returns as the first society was, brothers on opposite couches, with one methodology, saying "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said," and there is no "my Shaykh said." There is not in the inherited books of fiqh today, if a verse from the Book of Allah comes contrary to our school, it is interpreted figuratively. And if a sound hadith from the Messenger of Allah comes contrary, it is abrogated. On the day when these ideas do not exist and these Muslims all return, stripping themselves and extracting themselves from these narrow schools and multiple paths to the Book and the Sunnah, on that day the believers will rejoice in the victory of Allah, and there will be no need for all those names. But may Allah bless you.
"Sa'd brought it, and Sa'd was wrapped up. This is not, O Sa'd, how camels are brought in."
Therefore, if you wish to research this topic, research it with other than your Salafi brothers, because their name indicates their methodology, and their methodology is contrary to the methodology of the Book and the Sunnah. So you should deny the name and the named. As for our methodology, it is the Book and the Sunnah. And by Allah, the righteous Salaf did not have anything called a Salafi, nor did they have anything called a grammarian, nor did they have anything called the science of tawhid (the oneness of Allah). All these are terms indicating named things. If these named things are the truth, there is no objection to using them because they lead to the truth. If the difference between the name "Salaf" and affiliation to them, and these other names in their many forms and types, is clear in name and named, then I beg you earnestly to clarify this reality and to call for the abolition of all the named things and the abolition of their names as well, except for this methodology about which Allah the Exalted said regarding those who oppose it: . We say to all these sects, whether they are old sectarian groups or new parties: We say to them, have you followed the path of the believers? . Our Lord says, and I say regarding this verse, it is a very important matter. Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, if He had willed, He would not have mentioned . If He had willed, He would have said, "And whoever opposes the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him, We will turn him to what he has turned to and cast him into Hell, and evil is the destination." Because there is no doubt that the one who opposes the Messenger and contradicts him is no doubt from the people of misguidance. So why did our Lord connect to His saying: ? Here is a point, here is a very great wisdom. That is that between us and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) are fourteen centuries. We cannot be independent in opening the Noble Qur'an and interpreting the verse according to my understanding of the Arabic language. This is not enough. Recently, the day before yesterday, I had a man, an employee, who seemed to be an elder. His wife presented to me a very large book, meaning like this, written by a Syrian named the Engineer So-and-so Shahrour. I know this author. When I was in Damascus, he was the son of one of our brothers, and I knew that this son of his studied with the Soviets. I sat with him for some sessions and felt that he was completely deviant from Islam, meaning a communist. It has been more than ten years since I left Damascus, and he is publishing a book. What is it called? "The Book and the Qur'an," yes.

The questioner : What book?

The Shaykh : Ah, the Book is the Qur'an. It is corrupt because when you read it, he talks about it just like the Sufis do. When he explains some of the verses, he does so to apply them to his school of thought, not to convey their true meaning. He says, regarding us in the Levant, "Not by measure nor by weight," meaning that it is not accepted by language, reason, or Shari'ah. And so he interprets the verses according to his own whim in his interpretation. He tells you that the Book is one thing and the Qur'an is another. This is the essence of his explanation, and it indicates this misguidance by the very names "the Book" and "the Qur'an." And you know that in the language, the conjunction "wa" (and) implies a distinction; so the Book is one thing and the Qur'an is another. And when he comes to the saying of Allah the Exalted in the beginning of Surat al-Baqarah: , he tells you that this is not the Qur'an. The point is, this is a man with whom we debated regarding this book, and he would bring examples of how he interprets the Qur'an, including the saying of Allah the Exalted: . How did he interpret the Throne as dominion? He said, "His Throne means his dominion over the water," according to his own whim. I said, "My brother, in the Arabic language that you speak, is the Throne dominion?" The point is, these sects do not adhere to the methodology of following the path of the believers. Here is the point: Our Lord said: , meaning that we must understand how the Messenger was, through what means? We received the path of the Muslims, the Khalaf from the Salaf, from the Book and the Sunnah, but not with a new concept that Muslims do not know. So, as we told our companion earlier, they do not know about "exiting for four months in the path of Allah"; they do not know this religious innovation except in the present age. So were the Muslims who passed away in the fourteen centuries before them in error, and these people came to correct them? I gave this man an example of the Qadiyyan. You must have heard of them. They testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, they pray and fast, and so on, but they believe that there are prophets after our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). They argue with people and call disbelievers to their faith, and many Europeans and Americans have believed in their religion. So when I say to them, "How can you claim there are prophets after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? Allah the Mighty and Majestic says explicitly in the Qur'an: ," they tell you, "You are misunderstanding the verse. 'Khatam al-Nabiyyin' means the ornament of the prophets, just as the ring on the finger is the ornament of the finger; likewise, the Messenger is the ornament of the prophets. It does not mean that he is the last of the prophets." So this person believed in the wording but disbelieved in the meaning. And so, whether one remains within the circle of Islam but has strayed far or near, or has exited the circle of Islam, not one of them says, "I do not believe in the Book and the Sunnah." Even the Druze, as we said earlier, say, "I am a Muslim," but they distort the words from their places. So we want a name that indicates our present situation, before Muslims truly become Muslims again, as the first Muslims were. We want a name that expresses the correct creed. What is this name? "Muslim"? A Muslim is one of three and seventy sects. And in the other narration, . So we want a name that indicates the saved sect. Is there any harm if we say, "I must be from the saved sect"? No one denies this. So instead of saying "the saved sect," we say, "We are Salafis," because this word indicates to us a correct methodology that was followed by the generations attested to as the best. And I see now that drowsiness has begun to tease some of the eyelids, so, O Ghazi, go on another raid, for the time is one and a third.

The questioner : If Allah wills, I am traveling on Friday.

The Shaykh : What Allah willed, to Pakistan?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : May your companion be safe, and I hope you will be a good caller to Allah.

The questioner : May Allah accept it. This, our Shaykh, is what I do. I inform Allah that it is an effort of my own. If I am correct, it is from Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). But I say to the brothers: do not strain yourselves in names, but strain yourselves in how to be upon what the Prophet and his Companions were upon. This is what I call them to. Yes.

The Shaykh : This is sufficient.

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : Was there among the Companions a science called the science of grammar?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : They had the subject, the object, and the accompanying object, and the state. I do not know what else it was. Was it like that?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Do we have no need of these technical terms?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : We have no choice but to use them. Why? Because we have become non-Arabs, whereas they were Arabs by their natural instinct, so they did not need such technical terms. Now we must establish technical terms to make it easy for us to understand one another. What are you, my brother? "I am a Muslim" will not satisfy you. I am the first to say that. I do not want to convince you. What are you going to say to me? "I am a Muslim." Fine, I am like you. What is your school of jurisprudence? You are going to say to me, "I have no school of jurisprudence." You cannot say, "I have no school of jurisprudence." Because if you say, "I have no school of jurisprudence," you have fallen into what you fled from.

Another questioner : He said to him, "Sunni." He said to him, "First, Muslim." "Okay, Sufi?" He said, "No." I said to him, "Tahkiri?" He said, "No." "Okay, are you from the Muslim Brotherhood?" He said, "No." He said, "Okay, are you a Shi'ite?" He said, "No." "So what are you?" He said, "Sunni." He said, "The Book and the Sunnah."