A discussion about Muhammad Surur al-Zayn al-Abidin and his methodology, and a discussion about the Muslim Brotherhood and their methodology, and whether they are from the people of the Sunnah.

The Shaykh : We said earlier, taking advantage of the opportunity of the presence of our brother with the noble name

The questioner : Rabi' al-Hafiz.

The Shaykh : Rabi' al-Hafiz is among us on this occasion, by the invitation of our brother Ibrahim, may Allah reward him with good. We wanted to hear from him something regarding our brother Surur, because it is known to me from long ago that he is from the Muslim Brotherhood, and it is said about him recently that he is between the Muslim Brotherhood and a Salafi. As they say in our land of Sham, "The pot is lost on me." I do not know the truth, because we have not met him for a long time, since he was in Saudi Arabia. So I wanted to draw some of his news from this brother, considering that he lived with him for about ten years, as he said. Starting from the Prophetic hadith, which is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): , and the old Arabic wisdom: "What is the defect of news but its narrators?" So, acting in accordance with the hadith of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and this good wisdom, we wanted to know something from a reliable source and one who is aware of the situation or the call of our brother Surur. This is what we wanted to know about him, something to be relied upon, if Allah wills.

The questioner : In the name of Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah. As mentionedThe Shaykh : (may Allah preserve him), and as is known aboutThe Shaykh : Muhammad Surur al-Zayn al-Abidin, and as he speaks about himself, he was for a period working in the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood. Then he separated from them. The reasons for the separation and the disagreement are not what was inquired about.The Shaykh

Another questioner: ..

The questioner : I said at the beginning, my brother, I

Another questioner: ..

The questioner : By Allah, I am not better than the one who speaks about this matter. In fact, I do not want you to hear words that are not detailed and do not satisfy the need. I do not find myself, may Allah reward you with good, to be the best one to speak about this matter. Yes, but...

The Shaykh : We are satisfied, because we are a group of content people. We are satisfied with the good, even if the best is not found.

The questioner : But according toThe Shaykh : Muhammad Surur's writings and his authored works are available in the market. Perhaps you have heard of the magazine al-Sunnah, which is published by the Islamic Studies Center in Birmingham. It is, and we do not declare him pure before Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and he is the one in charge of the center, the director of the center. It is one of the beacons of the people of the Sunnah and the community, which has had a good role despite its newness. Not even three years have passed since its publication. As for the methodology of Shaykh Muhammad Surur, it is clear in his books. Indeed, the one who looks into them knows that his methodologyThe Shaykh : is, if Allah wills, a Salafi methodology. In fact, he is one of the men who defend this methodology and who call and advise the youth to be careful about this methodology. He does not pick from the book of so-and-so and so-and-so, but from everyone who has written and spoken about this methodology. Perhaps you know the book of the Shaykh, Manhaj al-Anbiya fi al-Da'wah ila Allah (The Methodology of the Prophets in Calling to Allah), Part One. He said good words in it, may Allah reward him with good. He criticizes some callers for deifying their shaykhs and their books, and for isolating themselves or confining themselves in a narrow corner, and adhering to specific booklets and making them the source of reception. This is something that heThe Shaykh : criticizes. He believes that the banner of the people of the Sunnah and the community is not the exclusive property of a type of types or a group of groups. He also mentioned the naming of Salafiyyah, as he explainsThe Shaykh : Al-Albani in many of his booklets and lectures. It is a description that every person who meets its conditions deserves. Also, from the call ofThe Shaykh : Muhammad Surur, and from the matters adopted by the Islamic Studies Center in Birmingham, is not only the dissemination of the clear, correct Salafi thought based on the correct understanding of the Quranic texts and the established Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), but also bringing together and uniting the many categories of the people of the Sunnah and the community present on the scene here and there, who believe in this methodology. One of the problems of the age is that the people of misguidance and innovations find for themselves a common denominator and a common ground that they strive to maintain and ignore their differences. Meanwhile, we, who are united by this sound methodology that we believe we are following, may share in the correct methodology, but in reality, we are still scattered. This is a lived reality, indeed a lived reality in our lands, and also a lived reality in the lands of the West. It is a painful reality that we see, for example, not as an exhaustive list, individuals or callers of the methodology of the Rafidah, the people of falsehood and misguidance. We find that they have banded together and made for themselves a platform and a single mouthpiece to confront us, the people of the Sunnah and the community. Meanwhile, we do not find anything to counter this banding together, even though unity and banding together are among our principles. This is one of the matters thatThe Shaykh : Muhammad Surur establishes in many of his writings and lectures, in its foundation and verification. It is one of the goals that the Islamic Studies Center in Birmingham has set itself to defend and achieve. Perhaps I have answered something of the question or clarified what was

The Shaykh : Does he have a political call?

The questioner : The Shaykh : He believes, and you also believe, if Allah wills, that there is no separator between the call. If we say "call," of course, politics is included under the word "call." And the magazine al-Sunnah, which speaks on behalf of the Center, is a political call magazine. It gives, in these days and since its publication, the call aspect great importance.

The Shaykh : I mean, what is the methodology of the political call? What is the difference, for example, between it and the previous party that he was in and then separated from? Is there a difference?

The questioner : I mean, one of the most important characteristics of the group he was with first, and perhaps you mean the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Shaykh: Certainly.

The questioner : Yes, their adoption of the issue of elections and parliaments. What appears in the last days, and even if they do not say it, is that it is no longer a means; it has become a goal. Entering the parliament and ending there. I mean, they enter the parliament and we do not hear any new proposals there after that. So, it is certain that this main point in the call of the Muslim Brotherhood these days is something that Shaykh Muhammad Surur does not see, and he does not see its benefit, regardless of its legal ruling. Yes, it is a loss in this world and a loss in the Hereafter. Also, it appears clearly in his writings, not hidden from anyone, his hatred of party spirit and foul tribalism. These are matters in which there is a clear disagreement, and perhaps they are among the reasons that led to the disagreement. And there are other matters that I may know, as I said at the beginning, and I am not the best one to speak about them. And other matters, despite my companionship with the Shaykh for a long period, that I may not know. Yes. Also, we were speaking a little while ago about the question you posed to me and I answered you, may Allah reward you with good, and which I clarified that its cause is the non-adherence to the correct Sunnah. So, from the call of Shaykh Muhammad Surur is verification when returning to the hadith. Perhaps in his writings you will see the care for, I mean, verifying this matter. And there are many common denominators, I do not say between us and you, because we are, if Allah wills, one category by the permission of Allah, but benefiting from each other is established. And my coming and my happiness with this meeting is nothing but a fruit, if Allah wills. And there was something that pushed me and encouraged me, and may Allah reward them with good, the brothers who brought me to this position.

The Shaykh : Welcome.

The questioner : Yes, and this confirms the extent of the breadth of our chests and the opening of channels between us and you, and that there is nothing there. Subhan Allah, I am now among my brothers. And one might say this speech is easy, I mean, everyone of us says it, but the brother who brought me here knows how much my joy was.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : But the books you referred to, we have not obtained them and we do not know about them. What are the books?

The questioner : I mean, he has a series called Manhaj al-Anbiya fi al-Da'wah ila Allah (The Methodology of the Prophets in Calling to Allah), and Part One has been published.

The Shaykh : Yes, and where was it printed?

The questioner : Dar al-Arqam.

The Shaykh : Dar al-Arqam.

The questioner : Part One was printed when Dar al-Arqam was in Kuwait. Part Two, which is about Shu'ayb (peace be upon him), now Dar al-Arqam is in Britain, of course. And Part Three will be published, if Allah wills, in which he speaks about

The Shaykh : So, as far as you know, is he present in the offices here?

The questioner : *The Path of the Prophets in Calling to Allah*, Part One. You have certainly seen it, I was visiting here.

The Shaykh : Where did you see it?

The questioner : I saw it at Dar 'Ammar.

The Shaykh : Dar 'Ammar, very good.

The questioner : As for Part Two, I do not know if I have seen it. It may be that he has a series, which is the first book, the first book that was published on the ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and the people of extremism, and Part Two of it will be published soon, if Allah wills, in which he will speak about the group of *al-Tawaqquf wa al-Tabyin* in Egypt, and if Allah wills, this series will continue regarding these deviant sects, parties, and groups.

The Shaykh : You mentioned earlier that he says that the sects of misguidance cooperate with one another, whereas the group and party in the Salafi call do not cooperate. But does he not notice that the reason for this is that the current rulers are against everything called Islam? In other words, the reason does not lie in the negligence of the Victorious Sect mentioned in the authentic hadith, but rather in the lack of support from the circumstances and the rulers for them to unite and gather. What is your view on this phenomenon?

The questioner : This is, without a doubt, clear and does not need evidence, because the regimes do not have an interest in it. And just a moment ago we were saying that seeking the help of people like al-Ghazali and others is one of the phenomena of the age, sending him to Algeria and sending him here, and seeking support from... Yes, without a doubt, that is what I intended as well in this. Even regarding individuals, I am pleased to sit with a brother I have not known before, all I know is that he is sound in his creed and has saved himself from these contemporary deviations. But what happens on the scene in the West is that when a new brother comes and enters the mosque,

The Shaykh : And peace be upon you.

The questioner : He asks about specific individuals. If he meets them, he gathers with them, and then they withdraw. And if he does not meet them, you do not find any natural comfort there.

The Shaykh : This is one of the effects of partisanship.

The questioner : This is what he actually sees,The Shaykh : Muhammad Surrur, among the diseases and afflictions that the call suffers from. And it is without a doubt that giving attention to the brothers who carry the correct methodology is a priority over others, and likewise others, even from the individuals of the Muslim Brotherhood and others and others, are without a doubt from the people of the Sunnah. One hand does not clap alone. And likewise, working to clarify matters to them and bridge the rift and the gap. This is a fictitious gap that the enemies of the people of the Sunnah and the community benefit from. The differences between us and them are differences in branches, regardless of some voices that come out from among their ranks. Gathering and sitting around a round table is not an impossible matter. Yes, rather, it is one of the matters that obliges the Muslim now to do something to achieve it. This is what I intended, and what the Shaykh intends when he says cooperation among the Salafis, and as I intended, the Salafis in the perspective ofThe Shaykh : And in his writings that are issued from him and from the center, it is not a name that belongs to a specific group of people and does not extend beyond them, but rather, as in your lectures and in your books, it is a name that is deserved by everyone who raises the banner of the people of the Sunnah and the community.

The Shaykh : But there is a note, or rather two notes. You described the Muslim Brotherhood as a party, saying that they are from the people of the Sunnah. This is first. Then you said that he says,The Shaykh : Surrur, that the difference is in the branches and not in the fundamentals. Are you personally convinced of this statement? Because Surrur is not with us to discuss it, but are you personally convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood as a party are, I mean, on the Sunnah and that they accept the Sunnah?

The questioner : I mean, why did I say at the beginning that I would clarify and cast some light on this point that I mentioned?

The Shaykh : And that is what we want.

The questioner : Yes, I said at the beginning, I have not, up to now, recanted. I said what I will say: I am not the mouthpiece of the Shaykh, but I will cast some light on this.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Without a doubt, among the matters in which Shaykh Muhammad Surrur differs, and which he also does not like, are the matters that he does not like.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah.

The questioner : Among the matters that he does not like is also the frequent, I mean, making his name a reference in hadith and in every hadith, or citing it to strengthen an opinion. This is among the matters that he does not like.The Shaykh .

The Shaykh : Excuse me, I did not understand.

The questioner : He does not likeThe Shaykh : It to be that his name is mentioned every time the speaker needs to prove a statement or to prove an opinion. This is among the matters that he does not like.

The Shaykh : We excused you from this. We said, what is your opinion?

The questioner : No, I said likewise, I mean, perhaps I spoke words that appeared to be not as I intended to convey. I say, I mean, I said thatThe Shaykh : He says, "We, our difference with the Muslim Brothers, they are from the people of the Sunnah."

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Without a doubt, at the beginning, I said that he differs with them on the issue of parliaments. He differs with them on the issue of if they adopt a book like the book of al-Ghazali, which contains serious deviations, rejecting authentic hadiths. Without a doubt, these matters are not among the branches. What I want to say and clarify clearly is that the Muslim Brothers, the youth, those who are organized with them, many of them originally do not know these matters in detail. All that is the case is that he was swept along, I mean, one of their youth met him and he was swept along with them and organized in their ranks. Is there, for this good, enthusiastic Muslim, a difference between us and him in the fundamentals?

The Shaykh : Why did you leave out the heads, the leaders?

The questioner : We differ with the heads.

The Shaykh : Why did you leave them out?

The questioner : I did not say at the beginning that we agree with them.

The Shaykh : I said, the Muslim Brothers, the Muslim Brothers are without a doubt included in the people of the Sunnah, and you started talking about the branches. We know the branches as you know them. But why do you not talk about the group, the leaders who direct these good-hearted individuals, who, if partisanship were separated from them, would be with the clear truth? I say, in that case, it is not correct to say that the Muslim Brothers are from the people of the Sunnah, because they fight the Sunnah. But you left out the heads and started working with the individuals.

The questioner : When I spoke, I did not say "no heads" or "no individuals." I spoke in a general way.

The Shaykh : And he is likewise. But when it is said "the Muslim Brothers," what comes to mind is this one who entered today, or a year or two ago, or the heads who have been sitting on the throne of partisanship for many years? By Allah, this is what comes to mind regarding the Muslim Brothers.

The questioner : But, Shaykh, now, I mean, I am talking about the scene in Britain, and I have been in Britain for a long time.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner : There now, and this is conveyed by some of the brothers from the Muslim Brothers, that they are in a state of resentment, in resentment of the base and discomfort with the heads. This is spoken by good, sensible people, and they are not, I mean, a small number.

The Shaykh : In that case, may Allah reward you. If the matter is so, then it is not correct to make a general statement, because when it is said "the Muslim Brothers," no one understands that there are such and such Brothers and such and such Brothers. We know people who fight against belonging to parliament and entering it. But we are talking about the Muslim Brothers here, and the Muslim Brothers in Egypt, and the Muslim Brothers in any other country. So, if they are, for example, in Syria, these are the heads, these are the ones who direct the individuals and the groups belonging to them. This is one thing. And the second thing, which I believe is important: the difference is in the branches and not in the fundamentals. How is this statement?

The questioner : Are you asking me?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I mean, when we talk about the good ones and the sensible ones among them, it is without a doubt that many of them, as you mentioned a moment ago, in the Muslim Brothers, are not originally carriers of a single thought. And among them are those who even champion the Salafi thought.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, Professor. Do not hold me to this. It is not correct to speak about individuals. We are talking about the methodology. The methodology of the Muslim Brothers, the methodology of the Muslim Brothers with the Sunnah?

The questioner : When I was speaking, I did not say that there are no differences between us and the methodology of the Muslim Brothers in the fundamentals. I did not say this.

The Shaykh : And I did not attribute this to you.

The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : No, no, let me, please, I mean, be objective. You said that the disagreement is secondary; that is your statement.

The questioner: Between whom and whom?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: Between whom and whom?

The Shaykh: For example, between Sarur and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The questioner: Okay, I said let me specify that.

The Shaykh: I am leaving you alone, but do not speak in a way that leaves us confused and causes us to fall into a prohibited matter that we tried to get out of in order to benefit from you. Do you remember my introduction? "The only calamity of news is its narrators." We want to understand the truth from you now. So when you speak about Sarur or about yourself, I do not care about the person. When you say the disagreement between us and the Muslim Brotherhood is in the branches and not in the principles, do not speak about a group other than the Muslim Brotherhood; speak about the methodology of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The questioner: I mean, if the question had been posed at the beginning, "Is it about the methodology?" When I was speaking at the beginning, the conversation took me, and this image drawn in my mind took me. I was speaking about the lived realities there, about the individuals, and about a segment of them who do not approve of what their leaders are doing. That is what I was speaking about, and that is what he, the Shaykh, intended in his speech in his books: that these people are from the people of the Sunnah, and they have disagreements. They mean they differ from the people of the Sunnah and the community on a specific point, but they have not stepped out of the circle of the people of the Sunnah and the community. They are within this circle, but they differ with it on certain points. I was not speaking about the methodology in this way because the question was not posed in this way.

The Shaykh: I mean, these points are secondary and not principled.
The questioner : From the beginning, I said to the one who asked me the question, "Why?" I mentioned some points of disagreement between Shaykh Muhammad Sarur and the Muslim Brotherhood. I mentioned the points; they are essential points. I mentioned the parliaments, and even the issue of partisanship; these are essential matters. But the one who seesThe Shaykh : that the Muslim Brotherhood, I mean, they are not part of the ummah (the Muslim community), and that the gap between us and them is not to be demolished, does not see it this way.

The Shaykh: No one sees it this way. But this negation, my brother, "he does not see it this way," "he does not see it this way," this is not knowledge. The jurists call this negation (sulub), and it has to do with creed. For example, they say some monotheists share with us in the testimony that there is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and so on. But they say Allah is not described as being above, below, right, or left, and so on. This is negation. Okay, what are the positive attributes regarding this issue? An answer must be posed positively. So the Muslim Brotherhood, the Liberation Party, and the other groups present in the Islamic land, no one takes them out of the circle of Islam. But we want to know what the disagreement between us and them is. Is it fundamental or secondary? Is it, as they say, principled or secondary? This word caught my attention when you described the Muslim Brotherhood as first being from the people of the Sunnah, or with the Sunnah, and then the disagreement is in the branches and not in the principles.

The questioner: I say again, I did not intend, and I will not intend, of course, that when you were speaking, may Allah reward you with good, that you specified the topic more, I am speaking about the methodology of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Shaykh: Okay, so we turn the page. What is his or your opinion of the methodology of the Muslim Brotherhood? Is it according to the Sunnah?

The questioner: Generally, like that?

The Shaykh: How do you not want it to be general? Specific is up to you?

The questioner: By Allah, if I saw it that way, I would be one of them.

The Shaykh: No. This is an answer from here. We are afraid of a political answer. Be careful, because if they differ with you in the branches, would you be one of them?

The questioner: In the branches?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: Perhaps this separation that is between us and them now.

The Shaykh: Ah, you started with politics. Perhaps, perhaps. This answer is not correct from Muslims. There is no such answer among Muslims. It is a situation among politicians. It is not the case. This stretching, we always warn our brothers to stay away from it, because it is not a characteristic of Muslims. It is a characteristic of politicians. A word you love, you stretch it, you twist it, you shorten it, you shorten it as you please. Now I return to the same question. You have opinions in the branches, and the Muslim Brotherhood or the Liberation Party or others differ with you. Would you be with them?

The questioner: In the branches? I said, excuse me?

The Shaykh: In the branches, yes.

The questioner: In the branches, would I be with them?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner: If it is in the branches, I work with them, but they do not compel me.

The Shaykh: I am telling you, in the branches.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: You would be with them? No, I say no.

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh: You say yes.

The questioner: On a point, I want to say something now. The matter for me is not black or white. I mean, if I work with them, this does not mean that I am a soldier of their soldiers. But I put my hand in their hands, and I have my work, and they have their work.

The Shaykh: That is not the research. I did not ask you if you cooperate with them or not. I say, would you be with them in these branches?

The questioner: In these branches, I would not be with them.

The Shaykh: Yes, that is it. Okay, here the research leads us to a known question, which is one of the rules of the Muslim Brotherhood, inherited from Hasan al-Banna (may Allah have mercy on him): "We cooperate on what we agree upon, and we excuse each other in what we differ in." What is Professor Muhammad's opinion of this?

The questioner: By Allah, my brother, I did not ask him, nor did I hear.

The Shaykh: Okay, what is your opinion?

The questioner: If the disagreement is within what our principles allow, yes. But this statement in its absolute form, no, this is not correct?

The Shaykh: Why?

The questioner: If it is a disagreement in the principles, how do we excuse each other?
The Shaykh : And in the branches?

The questioner: If it is in the branches, in matters that the Shari'ah permits, perhaps in jurisprudential matters or something in which our predecessors differed, or the disagreement does not involve stepping out of a principle of the people of the Sunnah, then there is no harm in it.

The Shaykh: You mentioned, and you were explaining the topic, we want to limit it. You are expanding it now. You mentioned permissible matters. What is their relation to the topic? If they are permissible matters, there is no disagreement in them, there is no disagreement. But he is saying, "and we excuse each other in what we differ in." First, did he distinguish between branches and principles?

The questioner: He did not distinguish.

The Shaykh: But then, what is your opinion of this phrase? Is it sound?

The questioner: I said its absolute form in this way is not sound.

The Shaykh: Okay. What is the correction of the phrase? Since its absolute form is not correct, what is the correction of the phrase? First as an idea, then as an application. How is the correction of the phrase? Since now you are saying frankly that this absolute form is not correct, what is the restriction that we must restrict it with so that the phrase is correct? Is my question correct or not?

The questioner: Your question is correct and important, and the answer must be precise and important.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner: I mean, the disagreement in which we must excuse each other, if it is not permitted by the Shari'ah, then there is no need for excuse in it.

The Shaykh: It is not included in the principle.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: It is not included.

The questioner: Yes, but if it is a disagreement in the principles.

The Shaykh: You will repeat your first statement. I mean, you want to say, if the disagreement is in the principles, we do not excuse each other, and if it is in the branches, we excuse each other. That is what you want to say. In summary, may Allah bless you, the Muslim Brotherhood proceed from this rule that their first leader established for them, and in its absolute form. And therefore, you do not find in them the mutual advice derived from the texts of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, including Surat al-Asr . This surah, the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when they met and then wanted to part, one of them would recite this surah because of its importance, and they would advise each other to truth and to patience. Truth, as you know, is the opposite of what? The opposite of falsehood. And falsehood is principled and secondary. Everything that contradicts the correct is falsehood. So this phrase is the reason for the Muslim Brotherhood remaining, practically for about seventy years, ideologically distant from the correct understanding of Islam, and consequently distant from the practical application of Islam, because one who lacks a thing cannot give it. Perhaps you know that in a past time, among the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, there were in some sensitive positions in the management of the Muslim Brotherhood Shi'ah. Do you know this?

The questioner: I knew that there was, even in the time of Shaykh Hasan al-Banna, a call for rapprochement between.

The Shaykh : Ah, so they are applying this text in its entirety and comprehensiveness. Therefore, we, as a group or a sect to whom Allah has granted the favor of guiding us to return to the Book and the Sunnah and to the methodology of the righteous Salaf, must know the position of the groups regarding this call, its words, and the principles from which they proceed in their public lives. This phrase is not permissible to approve, nor is it permissible for us to adopt it; rather, we correct it. For example, we believe that this word will not be a subject of debate among Muslims on the Book and the Sunnah. We must cooperate on what we agree upon, and we must excuse one another in what we differ upon, after mutual advice. This is when we combine the positive command and the negative command. The positive command is this mutual advice, and the negative command is that it is impossible for two Muslims to agree on every detail; this is impossible, let alone if we expand the circle from two to two, and four to four, and so on. It is impossible for them to agree on everything, but they must agree on mutual advice. What do you have, my brother, as an opinion on the issue? What is your evidence? The other agrees with him or says to him, "I have such and such." They exchange advice. Then, if they agree, that is good and blessed. If they differ, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) differed. Therefore, the error lies in this absolutization. This is the first point. The second error we know from all Islamic callers today, other than those who adhere to the methodology of the righteous Salaf, is dividing Islam into fundamentals and branches, and as we said earlier, dividing Islam into essence and shell. This is a pitfall that destroys Muslims and makes them distance themselves from Islam while they intend to draw closer. With the culture you have and the knowledge I have, we cannot distinguish the fundamentals from the branches unless by fundamentals one means only what relates to creed, and not what relates to rulings. In that case, prayer, which is the second pillar, does not enter into the fundamentals; it enters into the branches. Why? Because it has no relation to pure creed. This division is very, very dangerous. Therefore, I know that in the past, some groups used to call for adopting Islam in its entirety, and this is the call of truth, because Islam, as it came to us, must be adopted in its entirety. But from a practical standpoint, an individual or a group may be able to apply one aspect of it and not another. But from the standpoint of thought, it must be adopted in its entirety, without division. For example, obligatory, recommended practice, recommended, and so on. We do not say, "This recommended practice has no value, and this recommended act, what is its value, and the recommended practice, what is its value?" It is only the obligatory acts for us. No, we call for this Islam in its entirety, and then each person takes from it what he is able to bear and what he is able to perform. Therefore, this word has become a sign for those who fight the Sunnah. I encountered some of the heads of the senior Muslim Brothers from your country. A very serious conversation took place between me and them. We were in a gathering like this one, but we were sitting on the ground. The man entered, and the gathering was full. After the greeting, he began to shake hands with one person after another, as is preferred. I say, glory be to Allah, my seat was the last one there, by the door, on his left, so I was the last one he shook hands with. But I was watching the man's face change color. Why? Because no one stood up for him. He greeted and began to shake hands, so I wanted to soften the impact of the attendees' lack of response to him by standing up for him. I said to him, "Mr., when he comes to me and shakes my hand, they say in our region, 'A guest without standing up.'" As if he was waiting for such a word, he exploded. He is a great orator, and he said, "Mr., we are now in a time that does not justify us dealing with these branches and these details. We want to direct our efforts to fighting the Ba'athists and the communists." He rushed on like a sweeping flood, saying, "We must leave the disputed issues." I remained silent until he finished. Then I said to him, "Mr., which issue is there no disagreement in, so that we leave researching it? Do you not know that there are those who interpret the good word, *La ilaha illa Allah*, in a way that equates it with shirk (associating partners with Allah)? They say: *La ilaha illa Allah* means no worshipped entity except Allah, no worshipped entity except Allah. And the entities worshipped besides Allah, in the past and the present. I remind the attendees that this interpretation is deficient and misguidance, because the polytheists in the Noble Qur'an, when asked who created the heavens and the earth, would say, Allah. So they are believers in Allah. But despite that, Allah narrated about them, saying, the Exalted and Majestic: . So, at the time they believe in Allah as Lord, they believe in al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other, as gods they worship besides Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He. Therefore, our Lord, the Exalted and Majestic, narrated in the Qur'an about them: . And they, the disbelievers, said: . Because they actually understood the correct meaning of this word, unlike the understanding of some Muslims today of it... in existence except Allah. This word has truly left the minds of many of those who wrote about this word. There are printed papers we have in Damascus, and we have heard this deficient meaning here more than once. So, this word *La ilaha illa Allah* means no worshipped entity with truth except Allah. I said to the Shaykh, "What is your opinion of people who disagree with us even in its interpretation?" He said, "It is fine, but let them say *La ilaha illa Allah*. We want to direct our efforts to the communists, and so on." I said, "My teacher, with whom do you want to direct your efforts? With people like them? With those who say everything you see with your eye is Allah? They are the ones who interpret *La ilaha illa Allah* as no worshipped entity except Allah." Therefore, the matter is serious, my dear brother. The disagreement is fundamental, basic. The disagreement is in creed, the disagreement in the call between this Salafi call group and the other groups.

Another questioner: ..

The Shaykh : Then. Please.

The questioner : But I want to add a word. It seems that the one who understood from my words, when I said that there are disagreements in the branches, seemed to think I said...

The Shaykh : I said, disagreements in what?

The questioner : That there are, meaning between us and them, when I was speaking and I did not intend the methodology, it seemed he understood that we approve them in everything they are currently upon.

The Shaykh : No, no, my brother, that is not the understanding.

The questioner : Meaning, from the matters that...

The Shaykh : No, allow me. Do not build on something that has no basis. That is not the understanding. The understanding is, you said that the Muslim Brothers are from the people of the Sunnah, and you said the disagreement is in the branches and not in the fundamentals?

The questioner : With whom?

The Shaykh : We did not understand with these groups, the Muslim Brothers.

The questioner : With their leaders.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I did not say with their leaders.

The Shaykh : Muslim Brothers, Mr., Muslim Brothers. It does not mean this child and that youth, and so on. It means the methodology of the Muslim Brothers by which they raise their followers. That is what is intended.

The questioner : There was a difference in understanding here.

Another questioner : When one speaks, he should know their methodology and speak in the name of the methodology, not in the name of individuals?

The Shaykh : There is no wrong understanding, and no blame. We want to speak frankly. There is a wrong expression.

The questioner : Okay, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : No, allow me. The wrong expression will make you understand your error.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, but when the expression is correct and the understanding is wrong, the understanding is corrected. But when the expression is wrong and the understanding is correct, then the expression is corrected. So it is not permissible to say the disagreement between us and the Muslim Brothers is branch-related. The Muslim Brothers are from the people of the Sunnah. No, they fight this Sunnah and say your call now divides. We have lived with them in Syria and here.

The questioner : And they say to us likewise, and they say to us likewise.

The Shaykh : Okay, may Allah bless you. So these who say this, it is not this Ikhwan child. No, these are the leaders who lead such youths.

The questioner : I mean, once and for all, when I was speaking, I was talking about a picture formed in my mind, explaining that not all of them are like that, and that among them is a small group—these are the ones I was referring to. Otherwise, we do not approve of their alliance with the Ba'athists, nor do we approve of their entering the elections, nor have we approved of their figurative interpretation of the names and attributes, nor have we approved of that. And everyone who says this...

The Shaykh : ...and approves of their sectarianism?

The questioner : We do not approve of their sectarianism.

The Shaykh : And everyone is on their own, may Allah help them.

The questioner : We do not approve of that.

The Shaykh : Well, these are the Muslim Brotherhood. These are them.

Another questioner : There is an incident I would like to tell you about, in front of the brother. One of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, we went to him, me and one of the brothers, so that he would intercede for my brother in a specific job where his boss had wronged him. So he spoke, picked up the phone, and I spoke with my brother's manager, who was coming with me. The one on the phone said, "You, this one you are interceding for, is a Salafi." He said to him, "I seek refuge in Allah, is that possible?" He said to him, "Salafi." He said to him, "O Abu Ramez, who are you? When did I become a Salafi? I know you from the call. How are you a Salafi? No, by Allah, if he is a Salafi, I am not with him. Well, peace be upon you," and he hung up the phone.

The Shaykh : Allah is the Helper. Establish the prayer.

Another questioner : I have a question directed to the brother regarding some of the brothers present in Saudi Arabia. There is some propaganda, and I do not know its extent of truth, I say for myself, and I do not know its extent of truth, such as Safar and other youth.

The questioner : The Shaykh : Safar al-Hawali.

Another questioner : Yes, and Salman al-Oudah. They have a direct connection with...The Shaykh : Muhammad Sirr. So, do you know, is this statement true? Or rather, I say, regarding the methodology he is following now?

The questioner : By Allah, a direct connection, I do not know them, nor do they know me, so I cannot benefit you with this question. I know them; I see their writings, and they are among those whose writings and tapes please me, just as others please me. But a direct connection like that, as you said, I do not know that, meaning.

Another questioner : Even to the point that some of the students of knowledge present there, or some of the youth in general, call them "Sirriyyun." We hear that, meaning, until a person clarifies.

The Shaykh : The brother was on 'Umrah and arrived recently.

Another questioner : I was there three or four weeks ago, approximately.

The questioner : By Allah, this is the calamity, even in Britain. These are the Salafi brothers on the Indian subcontinent. There is a good brother among them named Munawwar. Now his name has become "al-Munawwariyyun," like that they classify them, and like that they deal with him. And these are "Sirriyyun," and these are such and such, and these are such and such.

Another questioner : Al-Albaniyyun.

The questioner : It is a calamity, you see, there is a closeness in opinions. But there is a repulsion, as if it is a background of one against the other. As soon as you see him, you see that he is charged, and you do not know why.

The questioner : I add to that, meaning, when we learned of some matters from our brothers in the sermons of the sitting of these, Salman al-Oudah and...The Shaykh : Safar and others who follow one methodology, that they combined three matters: the Salafi methodology, the Brotherhood methodology, and the Tablighi methodology. They combined these three paths in their methodology, meaning.

The questioner : By Allah, since you mentioned the brothers, I also like to hear the opinion of...The Shaykh : ...in their writings.

The Shaykh : Who?

The questioner : ...lectures of...The Shaykh : ...Safar and Salman al-Oudah, and what is your opinion of their writings?

The Shaykh : By Allah, I heard some of his tapes during the time of the fitnah. I was impressed by them.

The questioner : Truthfully, I came here to look, and there the books of...The Shaykh : ...Salman al-Oudah ran out. He has a book called *al-Ghuraba*.

The Shaykh : I have *Sifat al-Ghuraba*.

The questioner : *Sifat al-Ghuraba* and *al-Ghuraba al-Awwalun*.

The Shaykh : *al-Ghuraba*, I still do not know, I do not have it, I have not read it. But *Sifat al-Ghuraba*, I read it.

The questioner : And how did you find it?

The Shaykh : It is a good book, but there are some points of this generalization. This means all Muslims, all groups are fine, even though he spoke about the sects mentioned in the hadith and spoke specifically about the saved sect. He explicitly states that the followers of the four madhahib are upon the Sunnah. Why? I had a reaction to your statement, because he is making the four madhahib upon the Sunnah, the followers of the four madhahib, the four imams upon the Sunnah. But the followers today are against the Sunnah. You must have news of what is happening to the Arabs who are going to fight in Afghanistan, and the intensity of the Afghans' fanaticism for the Hanbali madhhab. I mean, disregarding the painful reality, in the way of rapprochement, this is a mistake. The reality must be clarified and an attempt made to treat it in the best way. So the statement that the followers of the four madhahib, the imitators today of the imams, are with the Sunnah, is one of the greatest errors.

Another questioner : Also, excuse me, Shaykh, no harm, with your permission, also it was issued or I heard...The Shaykh : ...Muhammad Sirr saying "fiqh al-waqi'" (jurisprudence of reality), something from his lessons or writings, which of course did not reach us, or something like that from this thing.
The questioner: He did not hear it, but once I heard a tape of one of the young Shaykhs in Saudi Arabia, I think it was Nasser al-Omair, or one, if I am mistaken. But he did not hear from him.

Another questioner : I mean, you did not hear, meaning, did not hear this preacher or teacher in this tape and comment on it or something from this title "fiqh al-waqi'." I mean, the Shaykh Muhammad did not comment.

The questioner : Did he comment on this tape?

Another questioner : Yes, or if he heard it, or you heard it, meaning, is he in agreement with this title or is he opposed to this title?

The questioner : By Allah, my brother, I did not hear it.

The Shaykh : He prays and his recitation is of Surat al-Shams.