The Shaykh’s remarks on some parties that sent a delegation to Qaddafi to discuss with him the issue of taking only the Qur’an and rejecting the Sunnah

The Shaykh : We now turn to another group. I stood up, or rather, it was reported to me, that an Islamic party sent a delegation to “Qaddafi” to debate him on this terrible bomb he had dropped on the Muslim community when he claimed that Islam is the Qur’an alone, and that the Sunnah is not given any weight; because what is not in it has entered it, 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 a statement, a bulletin, as is their custom. In this statement, they say the word of truth that Islam is the Book and the Sunnah. But look now at what deviation from the methodology of the pious predecessors does in another aspect. They mentioned in this bulletin, which they sent to “Qaddafi” who has rejected the Sunnah completely and radically, that the Sunnah is divided into 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 matters of creed, but is only a proof in legal rulings. This is a door they are offering to Qaddafi as a ready meal so that he may doubt the entire Sunnah. Because this philosophy is not accepted by this man, who has distanced himself from the Sunnah absolutely. We do not accept this philosophy, and we have clarified our position on it. Why do you reject ahad hadith in legal rulings? Every ruling...

The questioner : In matters of creed.

The Shaykh : In matters of creed.
Why do you reject ahad hadith in creed? Every legal ruling that you make obligatory to follow based on ahad hadith also contains creed. Every legal ruling includes creed. Therefore, the result of this distinction is either that you reject the Sunnah entirely, or that you accept it entirely without this distinction.
You rejected ahad hadith in creed because, they claim, creed is not built on conjecture, but on certainty. Well, then reject this Sunnah, the ahad Sunnah, in legal rulings as well. Because every ruling includes creed. And this is what I think is obscure. When you say: “Allah has forbidden this,” are you not saying about Allah that Allah has forbidden it? You believe that Allah has forbidden this, made this obligatory, and permitted this. All of these are beliefs. Therefore, this philosophy that they adopted and followed in this, like the Mu’tazilah in the past and present, has never helped them and will never help them absolutely in establishing the argument against a person who has rejected the Sunnah absolutely. Rather, we say: “By their fruits you will know them.” We say: The fruit of this distinction between the ahad Sunnah and the mutawatir Sunnah is that it bears this bitter fruit: that this man declares to Islam that we do not adopt the Sunnah; the Qur’an and that is all. And this means demolishing Islam from its root. Especially since Qaddafi was preceded by a group forty years ago, some of whom I know in Aleppo, and their origin is in Egypt. They were influenced by propaganda from India, the source of much fitnah (trial, discord or temptation). These people are called “Quranists.” I think two years ago a person from Egypt visited me here, one of these Quranists who memorized the Qur’an by heart, who does not recognize the Sunnah at all. We debated with him a little, then he turned away and did not return.
The point is: These people went to establish the argument against a person, yet they are themselves refuted. This is a point and a lesson.
The last point, and this is the direction the writer took in this article. Finally: In the bulletin referred to, 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 with an Islamic upbringing, and this people may be far behind some Muslim peoples, like the Syrian people, for example. So if we assume that this means climbing the impossible and he handed over the rule to them, what can they do? Nothing!
What does this indicate? 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, prepares the atmosphere for the ruler if he wants to apply an Islamic ruling.
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 (a woman's display of her adornment), it is forbidden to enter cinemas, it is forbidden such and such. Who are the individuals who will apply these laws? They are those who were originally raised on Islam. But take the Islamic law and apply it in Europe in one leap; this is truly impossible. But the atmosphere must be prepared for this. But not as our friend here says, preparing the atmosphere one hundred percent; this is impossible. So whatever of the legal rulings can be applied, we are satisfied with it and do not wait forever. This is a gain and a profit. But this does not carry us, as these people did and are still doing, to the conclusion that 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.