Verse: (And let there be from among you a community...) Is it used as evidence for the permissibility of political party blocs?

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Some have interpreted it as permitting the formation of Islamic blocs.

The Shaykh : What does "community" (ummah) mean?

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : The community is a group, a faction.

The questioner : A bloc that is formed.

The Shaykh : A bloc, not multiple blocs, a group.

The questioner : Not all the people.

The Shaykh : Not all the people.

The questioner : So it is permissible for a faction to stand up and say...

The Shaykh : And who said "no"? And is it possible, is it possible for the community to be led by blocs? But the matter has been confused for you. Be patient a little. meaning a group.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What is the function of this group? They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. So what is the relationship of this to political party blocs? What is the relationship? It has absolutely no relationship. Do you imagine a Muslim saying something contrary to this verse? Say "no."

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : So this verse has absolutely no relationship, or proof, for those who say that political parties are permissible. Rather, the verse is explicit in the obligation of the existence of a body and a group from the Muslim community who perform the duty of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. The purpose of this command is that we should not imagine that every Muslim must learn religious knowledge. No, that is the function of the scholars. Every Muslim must be one who enjoins what is right and forbids what is wrong, but rather a group from this Islamic community. So the intended meaning of the verse is to teach the Muslims that it is obligatory for a faction of them...

The questioner : Praise be to Allah.

The Shaykh : ...to stand up. May Allah have mercy on you.

The questioner : May Allah guide you.

The Shaykh : ...to perform the duty of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. This is from one aspect. From another aspect, I am asking you now, do you think, my brother, that those you refer to, who use this verse as evidence for the permissibility of forming multiple blocs and parties, do you believe that these parties perform the duty of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong?

The questioner : Unfortunately, they are all falling short.

The Shaykh : That is it. So the thing that we must do, which we are commanded to do in the Noble Qur'an, we are not doing. And the thing that we were not commanded to do, and on the contrary, we were forbidden from it, we are forming blocs and parties, fighting in the cause of partisanship, and being hostile in the cause of partisanship. This, glory be to Allah, means reversing the rulings of the Shari'ah...

The questioner : Please, to complete the same point?

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : Regarding the four Imams, or more, is each of them in the form of a bloc or...

The Shaykh : God forbid, God forbid.

The questioner : A point of view...

The Shaykh : No problem, I will tell you and correct you on this point of view. The four Imams, and the forty, and the four hundred, and the four thousand, and count as much as you wish, because the scholars of the Muslims, may Allah bless them, none of them ever called upon the people around them to cling to him and be with him and not recognize anyone else. God forbid that from them. And you must have heard or read that every Imam of the four Imams used to say: "If the hadith is authentic, then it is my madhhab." But more amazing and greater than this is that Imam al-Shafi'i, the Qurayshite Imam al-Shafi'i, used to say to his student Imam Ahmad: "O Ahmad, you know more about hadith than I do, you know more about hadith than I do. So if a hadith about the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) comes to you as authentic, inform me of it, whether it is from Hijaz, Iraq, Egypt, or whatever else." This means that...The Shaykh : ...he was saying to his student, and without doubt every one of...The Shaykh : ...and his student has a group, meaning students, but God forbid that one of them would say, "You must be with me, or be with Imam Ahmad, or with another of the Imams." They were, as the Lord of the Worlds said in truth in the Noble Qur'an: But what happened afterwards? The students, rather the students of the students... We were forbidden from this fanaticism, and this bloc formation, and this partisanship. Therefore, it is not permissible for a Muslim to ever imagine that just as the four Imams made four parties, we too today make four parties. And I say, God forbid that they made parties. And yet I say, if they had made parties, they were scholars. But today, those who establish parties are not scholars. Yes?

The questioner : Ignorant people.

The Shaykh : They are not scholars, that is the least that can be said. So I do not care anymore about entering into details. If it was permissible for the previous scholars to form blocs and parties, and yet they did not do so, then it is not permissible for ignorant people like us, in relation to them, to say, "Just as they made parties, we will make parties like their story." No. And so, from the effects of partisanship is that the partisan group remains in ignorance, not expanding in the knowledge of the rulings of the Shari'ah. Yes.