What is your opinion of this principle among the Tablighi Jamaat?

The questioner : Our Shaykh, the question we asked first was, in fact, related to one issue, so may Allah reward you with good. You have spoken about many issues related to the Tablighi Jamaat, but here are some other issues that may relate to other aspects. We want to get an answer to them, even if briefly, and then in detail. May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.
He says:The student : What is your opinion of one of the principles of the Tablighi Jamaat, which is that they say: We do not speak about four things during our outings, because of the harms that result from speaking about these things, which are: politics, disagreements, jurisprudence, and groups.

The Shaykh : We ask Allah for guidance for us and for them. Regarding politics, we agree with them on this first point, but not absolutely. As I have mentioned this more than once, we were tested there in Syria and questioned by the intelligence services, as they do, unfortunately, in all Islamic countries. They accused you of forming a bloc, gathering, and so on. I said: My gathering is for reform, not for politics. After a very long discussion, perhaps exceeding an hour, when the Ba'athist interrogator found no legal ground to take against me, he said: Then go, and stick to your lessons, but do not speak about politics. Although I had explained in detail: Our call is a call for reform, returning to the Book and the Sunnah, as you always hear. I said: I mentioned to you earlier, with some detail, so now your return to saying "but do not engage in politics" prompts me to clarify something: It is true that we do not engage in politics, but this is not because engaging in politics is not part of Islam. No, politics is part of Islam. Some scholars of Islam have written on political jurisprudence, both in the past and the present, foremost among them being Ibn Taymiyyah. The Islamic state cannot do without politics, because what does politics mean? It means managing people and facilitating their affairs in accordance with their interests in this world and the Hereafter. So we do not deny the obligation of engaging in politics, but we have seen—and this is the point—that part of politics is leaving politics. We have seen in this time that part of politics is leaving politics. The purpose now is: We agree with the group on not engaging in politics temporarily, but it cannot be dispensed with. Otherwise, how can the Muslim state be established except through such politics? But those who should engage in politics must be scholars, they must be jurists, they must be scholars in the true sense of the Book, the Sunnah, and the Salaf, and so on. Therefore, we agree with them on this first stage, and we do not agree with them in detail. We agree with them in general terms, not in detail, and we say now: Part of politics is leaving politics.
As for the second point, we do not agree with them on it, which is jurisprudence.
Al-Halabi : Jurisprudential issues.

The Shaykh : Jurisprudential issues. How is this? How can one imagine a group: First, they call themselves the Tablighi Jamaat. What do they want to convey to people? Either they convey the creed, and unfortunately they do not do so. And I do not know why they do not mention it? Because by jurisprudential issues, they perhaps mean what is broader and more comprehensive.
The student : Disagreements, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : That is it. So what do they call jurisprudential issues? I do not want to say that they call to what any religious group on earth might call to, whatever the type of their religion, except the Jews. You know, for example, that the Christian missionary groups call to—what do they call it in the Gospel?—the Ten Commandments: Do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not lie, I don't know, and so on. Islam also calls to these things. So if the group does not want to look into politics, we told them: No harm temporarily. But in jurisprudential issues, the Messenger of Allah said: I firmly believe that the reason this clause was placed is the same reason that leads them to leave the sermon of necessity. Perhaps you have not forgotten what the reason is: They do not believe in his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: This is the principle established by the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, as we mentioned to you earlier. Therefore, they do not elevate this abandoned Sunnah nor revive it. Likewise, why did they turn away from jurisprudential issues? Because they have no jurisprudence. Because jurisprudence, as Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said, the Companions said. It is not deception.
What is knowledge? You set yourself up for foolish disagreement Between the Messenger and the opinion of a jurist.
No, and no denial of attributes nor negation of them, Out of fear of denial of divine attributes and distortion.
They do not look into jurisprudential issues claiming that it incites disagreement—no, this is a claim they hide behind. The truth is that they do not know jurisprudence well. Everyone—as they say in our region in Syria—the Tablighi Jamaat is like the Muslim Brotherhood, like the Tahrir Party. There is no difference between them on one point, which is: The Muslim Brotherhood combines the Salafi and the Sufi, the Hanafi and the Shafi'i, the Maliki and the Hanbali, and in some cases the Sunni and the Shia. This is what politics requires. The Tahrir Party is the same. They do not care, to the point that they have explicitly stated in their methodology that they do not adopt an opinion in creed. This is one of their good points, but it is bad in itself. As for the Tablighi Jamaat, they do not state this explicitly, but it is their reality. They do not adopt an opinion in creed, and a fortiori, they do not adopt an opinion in jurisprudence. Why? Because jurisprudence was compiled there by the people of Al-Azhar al-Sharif. There is a book called "Jurisprudence According to the Four Schools." If you want to get lost in the midst of disagreement between the four schools, read this book. And then you will not come out of it except dazed, not knowing which opinion to go to and hold onto.
Likewise, today's university professors study what they call comparative jurisprudence, following the method of "Jurisprudence According to the Four Schools." They tell you: Abu Hanifa said such and such, and his evidence is such and such, and the Shafi'i's opinion and his evidence is such and such, and so on. And after that, where is the truth that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, said in it: , So those who do not engage in jurisprudential issues, the reason is not that it causes disagreement. Because the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, who is the master of all humanity, one of his names—and I hope you hear this and memorize it—one of his names is "Al-Mufarriq" (The Divider), like the Qur'an. The Qur'an is named "Al-Furqan" (The Criterion). Why is the Messenger of Allah Al-Mufarriq? He divided by his call between the believer and the disbeliever. One of the results of that was a division between the parent and his child: this one is a disbeliever, an associate of partners with Allah, and this one is a believer, a Muslim. So why are we afraid to divide? We are afraid to divide by falsehood, and we are not afraid to divide by truth. Because our Lord says: But the truth is that they do not know the truth from falsehood, they do not know the right from the wrong. Therefore, they exemplified with the common saying: "Running away is half of courage." Because if he enters
The questioner: Running away is two-thirds of the pot.

The Shaykh- He laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) and the students — the point is: as they say, they are not just filler. For example, Abu Hanifah says: "The emergence of blood, however little, invalidates the wudu'." Imam al-Shafi'i says: "However much it is, it does not invalidate the wudu'." Imam Ahmad, along with Malik, says: "If it is a lot, it invalidates it; otherwise, it does not." What do they want from all this noise? This requires first looking into the evidence of the schools of jurisprudence, and secondly, performing an equation and weighing these evidences against each other. This requires something additional to the obligation of knowing the opinions of the jurists: one must know the science of hadith in its terminology, and the science of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil in its criticism and vindication. Most of the doctors, not the general public from the Tabligh group and the like who come out of the da'wah, these people cannot do it. But I used to prefer that they say, as they used to say in the not-so-distant past when we mentioned to you that we were at a banquet and spoke about groups, including the Tabligh group. One of them, whom we hold in good regard, said: "That is because I encouraged them to seek knowledge." He said: "That is why our shaykhs tell us: Go to the scholars." So I said to them: "We want you to be the scholars. You are the ones who care about the da'wah of the ummah. It is not that you go to the scholars and then come out and are not scholars."
So, their leaving aside the fiqh issues because they cause division — I say this openly and hope not to be held accountable, for the truth is more deserving of being spoken — this is an excuse uglier than a sin. Why? Because first, it does not express the real reason, and second, one must distinguish between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong, especially when it concerns 'aqidah. And as you hear, what did he say in the second paragraph?

The questioner: Disputes.

The Shaykh: Disputes. Is there a dispute in tawhid? Many doctors say: "There is no dispute, my brother. All Muslims say: 'I bear witness that there is no god but Allah.'" Yes, but saying it is one thing, and understanding and believing it is another. When the Muslim state is established, if a disbeliever says: "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah," his head is saved from being cut off from his body. But did he thereby escape eternal abode in the Fire? The answer is: If he understood — the first condition — the correct meaning of this phrase first, and then believed in this correct understanding second; he will escape eternal abode in the Fire on the Day of Resurrection.
But if he did not understand, then consequently he did not believe, because we do not conceive of faith that is not accompanied by correct understanding. So, do the Muslims today, all the Muslims who number how many millions?

The questioner: A thousand million...

The Shaykh: A thousand million or more. All these thousand million say: "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah." Perhaps some of them are Druze. Well, did these people agree on a correct understanding of this phrase that saves them from eternal abode in the Fire on the Day of Resurrection? The answer is: Unfortunately, they did not agree; and therefore...