What is your opinion of those who say that it is not permissible to be named by anything other than Islam, and that whoever does so has called to other than Islam, like the case of these Islamic groups?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... There is disagreement and negligence among Muslims regarding the Islamic group, and these names are not from Islam in the least. The Lord of the Worlds named people Muslims, and "Muslim" is this name, and it is sufficient. If you say: such and such, these names that people have innovated cause Muslims to become divided at that time, and the conflict between them becomes severe. So that we gather the Muslims upon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and they all agree upon this call: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. It is obligatory upon us to forget these names and not call to them. He also states that whoever calls to these names, may Allah be Exalted, until it becomes "let us work in such and such a direction, such and such a group," is sinful before Allah, Mighty and Majestic, because he is not calling to Islam, but rather calling to names that he and those around him in this group have innovated. Therefore, it is necessary that we discard all these names and call people to the Book and the Sunnah by the name of Islam and Muslims, Muslim only. This is the summary of his statement.
The Shaykh : I will give a concise answer and a detailed answer.
The concise answer: This person who says this is like the ostrich that sees the hunter and puts its head in the sand; out of its foolishness, it thinks that when it does not see the hunter, the hunter does not see it. He makes the naming a cause of division. This is on the responsibility of the transmitter, who is you. So we say: How old is this naming?
The questioner : Fifty years.
The Shaykh : Say fifty, a hundred, two hundred, three hundred. So we will ask: Did the division of Muslims into various schools and paths occur before this naming or after? No doubt that anyone with some knowledge and a little fairness will say that the division was before the existence of this name. Correct... To say this one is Syrian and this one is Jordanian and this one is Egyptian and this one is Albanian and this one is Turkish and this one is Afghan. Has anyone denied these origins, which express their reality? I am actually Albanian, Syrian, and Jordanian. I have combined three attributes, what Allah willed, in the end of times. What is wrong with this? There is nothing wrong with it if it expresses the reality. But if I say I am Albanian and raise my head and look down on every other Muslim who is not Albanian, from here comes the deviation and the misguidance. We know from the history of the early Muslims in the cities. Do you remember by the explicit text of the Noble Qur'an the Emigrants and the Helpers? Those who follow these Emigrants and Helpers in their footsteps and do not deviate to the right or the left, it is obligatory upon them to clarify their call to people. If this poor man you are pointing to says, "It is sufficient for us to call to Islam," is it sufficient for us to say only Islam? ... The Book and the Sunnah, but according to the methodology of the righteous predecessors. So the methodology of the righteous predecessors, the predecessors summarized it. Do you attribute yourself to the predecessors, O Zayd? Yes. So you are a Salafi. If you do not attribute yourself to the predecessors, you are deviant. There is no escape from this.The questioner : Does this mean it is a condition that must be met?
The Shaykh : It must be met, especially in that time, otherwise everyone would say, "We are Muslims, Book and Sunnah." And therefore, I have realized that this request is negligence and a reversal of the truth. This name was the result of the difference, and the difference was not the result of this name. And the difference resulted in the school of so-and-so and the school of so-and-so, and their division, until it reached the point where some of them did not pray behind others. And if we know these details, which first return to history and secondly to making the cause an effect and the effect a cause, if we know this truth, we return and say that Zayd is calling to what 'Amr is calling to. 'Amr is followed by people. First, we do not tell people, "Follow 'Amr," but rather we tell them, "Follow the Book of Allah and follow the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." He calls to this call, and those who follow him know this call completely. But unfortunately, they do not find among the scholars those who distinguish first between the jurisprudence of the Book and the Sunnah and traditional jurisprudence. This one lived as a Hanafi and does not know anything other than the Hanafi school, and this one lived as a Maliki and does not know anything other than the Maliki school, and that one is a Shafi'i and this one is a Hanbali. This one calls to following the jurisprudence of the Book and the Sunnah. But some people in some countries, it is very natural when they do not find around them at least someone they trust in his knowledge, so they are forced to take the knowledge of those around them. But he does not call to following him exclusively and turning away from following other scholars if they are found. And his like, if this approximation and representation is correct, is like the Imams. All the Imams said, "Do not imitate me, do not imitate me, do not imitate Malik, do not imitate al-Shafi'i, do not imitate al-Awza'i, and take from where they took." This caller to following the righteous predecessors, who is 'Amr, has the same call. But if he is afflicted with people who actually imitate him or are fanatical about him, this is not his call, just as imitating the Imams is not their call, but rather their call is following the Book and the Sunnah. And suppose that Zayd, who says, "I call to the call of so-and-so," is he knowledgeable about the Salafi call? Is he knowledgeable about the Book and the Sunnah? Or is it just a general word of following the Book and the Sunnah? If he is asked about the Book and the Sunnah, he does not know, like the story of that Kurd with the Jew when he met him on the road and said to him, "So-and-so, become a Muslim," and drew his dagger on him, "Become a Muslim or I will kill you." He said, "We will become Muslim." What do I say? He said, "I do not know," while threatening him with death that he would become Muslim. When he is asked how to become a Muslim, he says to him, "I do not know." So this person who claims that he calls to the Salafi call, which so-and-so calls to, but so-and-so is followed by people over other people, is he knowledgeable? Can he distinguish, for example, the general and the specific, the absolute and the restricted, the abrogating and the abrogated on one hand, and can he know the authentic from the weak in hadith on the other hand? ... Either negligence or deliberate ignorance. The Salafi call is a general call that encompassed the entire Islamic world by the grace of Allah, Mighty and Exalted, and then by the grace of the callers scattered in the countries.
Second, these people do not imitate a specific person; they imitate, if the expression is correct, a specific methodology. Whoever says to them, "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said," they follow him. If it is Zayd, Bakr, Ahmad, Muhammad, and so on. So the doubts that are raised confirm that they do not proceed from awareness, nor from intellect, nor from knowledge.
The Shaykh : I will give a concise answer and a detailed answer.
The concise answer: This person who says this is like the ostrich that sees the hunter and puts its head in the sand; out of its foolishness, it thinks that when it does not see the hunter, the hunter does not see it. He makes the naming a cause of division. This is on the responsibility of the transmitter, who is you. So we say: How old is this naming?
The questioner : Fifty years.
The Shaykh : Say fifty, a hundred, two hundred, three hundred. So we will ask: Did the division of Muslims into various schools and paths occur before this naming or after? No doubt that anyone with some knowledge and a little fairness will say that the division was before the existence of this name. Correct... To say this one is Syrian and this one is Jordanian and this one is Egyptian and this one is Albanian and this one is Turkish and this one is Afghan. Has anyone denied these origins, which express their reality? I am actually Albanian, Syrian, and Jordanian. I have combined three attributes, what Allah willed, in the end of times. What is wrong with this? There is nothing wrong with it if it expresses the reality. But if I say I am Albanian and raise my head and look down on every other Muslim who is not Albanian, from here comes the deviation and the misguidance. We know from the history of the early Muslims in the cities. Do you remember by the explicit text of the Noble Qur'an the Emigrants and the Helpers? Those who follow these Emigrants and Helpers in their footsteps and do not deviate to the right or the left, it is obligatory upon them to clarify their call to people. If this poor man you are pointing to says, "It is sufficient for us to call to Islam," is it sufficient for us to say only Islam? ... The Book and the Sunnah, but according to the methodology of the righteous predecessors. So the methodology of the righteous predecessors, the predecessors summarized it. Do you attribute yourself to the predecessors, O Zayd? Yes. So you are a Salafi. If you do not attribute yourself to the predecessors, you are deviant. There is no escape from this.The questioner : Does this mean it is a condition that must be met?
The Shaykh : It must be met, especially in that time, otherwise everyone would say, "We are Muslims, Book and Sunnah." And therefore, I have realized that this request is negligence and a reversal of the truth. This name was the result of the difference, and the difference was not the result of this name. And the difference resulted in the school of so-and-so and the school of so-and-so, and their division, until it reached the point where some of them did not pray behind others. And if we know these details, which first return to history and secondly to making the cause an effect and the effect a cause, if we know this truth, we return and say that Zayd is calling to what 'Amr is calling to. 'Amr is followed by people. First, we do not tell people, "Follow 'Amr," but rather we tell them, "Follow the Book of Allah and follow the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." He calls to this call, and those who follow him know this call completely. But unfortunately, they do not find among the scholars those who distinguish first between the jurisprudence of the Book and the Sunnah and traditional jurisprudence. This one lived as a Hanafi and does not know anything other than the Hanafi school, and this one lived as a Maliki and does not know anything other than the Maliki school, and that one is a Shafi'i and this one is a Hanbali. This one calls to following the jurisprudence of the Book and the Sunnah. But some people in some countries, it is very natural when they do not find around them at least someone they trust in his knowledge, so they are forced to take the knowledge of those around them. But he does not call to following him exclusively and turning away from following other scholars if they are found. And his like, if this approximation and representation is correct, is like the Imams. All the Imams said, "Do not imitate me, do not imitate me, do not imitate Malik, do not imitate al-Shafi'i, do not imitate al-Awza'i, and take from where they took." This caller to following the righteous predecessors, who is 'Amr, has the same call. But if he is afflicted with people who actually imitate him or are fanatical about him, this is not his call, just as imitating the Imams is not their call, but rather their call is following the Book and the Sunnah. And suppose that Zayd, who says, "I call to the call of so-and-so," is he knowledgeable about the Salafi call? Is he knowledgeable about the Book and the Sunnah? Or is it just a general word of following the Book and the Sunnah? If he is asked about the Book and the Sunnah, he does not know, like the story of that Kurd with the Jew when he met him on the road and said to him, "So-and-so, become a Muslim," and drew his dagger on him, "Become a Muslim or I will kill you." He said, "We will become Muslim." What do I say? He said, "I do not know," while threatening him with death that he would become Muslim. When he is asked how to become a Muslim, he says to him, "I do not know." So this person who claims that he calls to the Salafi call, which so-and-so calls to, but so-and-so is followed by people over other people, is he knowledgeable? Can he distinguish, for example, the general and the specific, the absolute and the restricted, the abrogating and the abrogated on one hand, and can he know the authentic from the weak in hadith on the other hand? ... Either negligence or deliberate ignorance. The Salafi call is a general call that encompassed the entire Islamic world by the grace of Allah, Mighty and Exalted, and then by the grace of the callers scattered in the countries.
Second, these people do not imitate a specific person; they imitate, if the expression is correct, a specific methodology. Whoever says to them, "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said," they follow him. If it is Zayd, Bakr, Ahmad, Muhammad, and so on. So the doubts that are raised confirm that they do not proceed from awareness, nor from intellect, nor from knowledge.