The Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) advice to Hudhayfah in the well-known hadith of the fitan: Does it apply to our present age?

The questioner : Our Shaykh, in the hadith of Ibn al-Yaman, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ... the hadith is well known, of course, the hadith of the fitan in the two Sahihs.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : So he said to him: “What do you command me to do, O Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)?” He said: The question is: Does this hadith apply to our contemporary reality?

The Shaykh : Yes. There is no doubt that this hadith applies perfectly to every faction, every group, or party that clusters together and does not deal with other Islamic groups in accordance with the sincere Islamic brotherhood that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has commanded, especially when these groups or factions are accompanied by pledges of allegiance, where each sect pledges allegiance to an emir who is obeyed just as the Supreme Imam is obeyed, whom the masses of Muslims must pledge allegiance to. It is known among the scholars of the Muslims that the Muslim ruler who is pledged to by the Muslims as a whole becomes obligatory to obey, execute, and implement, subject to the well-known condition that the Messenger (peace be upon him) expressed in many hadiths, such as his saying: Therefore, the command of the Muslim ruler pledged to by the Muslims must be executed under this mentioned condition. This means that if he commands something whose origin in the Shari'ah is permissible, but he sees that this permissible command—which is permissible in the Shari'ah, meaning it is up to you whether you do it or leave it—when this ruler pledged to by all the Muslims commands it, executing this command becomes obligatory. This is the full extent of the matter of parents and the child: if one of the parents commands the child to do something whose origin in the Shari'ah is permissible, it becomes obligatory for the child to obey and implement it. Now, these parties and groups have climbed up and taken the position of the Supreme Imam who is pledged to by all the Muslims. From here, the gap and disagreement among the Muslims increase, because the emir of this group commands what is contrary to what the emir of that group commands, and so the division among the Muslims increases due to what they call today “organization” and what they call “temporary emirate,” but they attribute to it the rulings related to the emir who is the Imam. And I give you an example that clarifies for you the bad effect that increases the disagreement and division here in Jordan. As you know, there is the Muslim Brotherhood group, and they issued a decision to boycott Al-Albani and his lessons here. And indeed, we saw the effect of this boycott when one of us would pass by someone who, if a Muslim Brotherhood brother passed by him, he would greet him. But after this decision, he would look away from him, turn aside from him, and ignore him. Why? Because the leadership made this decision, so it must be obeyed, even if there is no reason. The only reason is that Al-Albani calls to the Book and the Sunnah and to the methodology of the righteous Salaf. And this call, without doubt, affects some members of the group. And indeed, this thing happened: they warned some of them, and then what did they say? Did they freeze them?

The questioner : They expelled them.

The Shaykh : They froze them and then expelled them. Why? Because they asked them not to attend Al-Albani’s lessons. They said: “O people, this is a very strange command. First, Al-Albani does not form a party to compete with your party; rather, he calls to following the Book and the Sunnah. Second, we benefit from his lessons in ways we do not benefit from your lectures. So why do you command us not to attend this man’s sessions?” They said: “Until now, it is not possible. Either the loyalty is to us or to the Shaykh!”

The questioner : Dual loyalty.

The Shaykh : Dual loyalty, glory be to Allah. And so they warned them for six months. O my meaning, O my...The Shaykh : They said: “We do not see a contradiction between being with you as Muslim Brothers and benefiting from the lessons.”The Shaykh : They said: “No, after six months, let them go. What became clear to you?” They said: “By Allah, the benefit we gain from the lessons...”The Shaykh : ...we did not gain in all these years that we belonged to you. So they expelled them. This is one of the effects of these factions that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) commanded to be avoided, all of them. And so, the harm of this party clustering, if we did not touch it with our hands, would be sufficient evidence of its contradiction with this Shari'ah, like this hadith and like the noble verse: Therefore, this hadith, the hadith of Hudhayfah, whose authenticity is agreed upon, applies perfectly to all the parties that... what is the phrase? They huddle up.

The questioner : They huddle up.

The Shaykh : They huddle up. This is a suitable phrase for them; they cluster together as if they are the Muslims and nothing else. Therefore, we say, and this reality, the reality testifies to this truth that we say with complete frankness: the correct Islamic call, and it is nothing but the Salafi call, accommodates all the individuals of the Muslims and includes them, and not the other way around. There is no group, neither the Tahrir Party, nor the Muslim Brotherhood, nor the Tabligh group, that accommodates every individual of the Muslims. This is because our methodology is the methodology of the Book and the Sunnah, and according to the methodology of the righteous Salaf. And it is not possible for a Muslim to be free from following the Book and the Sunnah. But here is the third and final argument: and according to the methodology of the righteous Salaf. Here the difference appears between all the Muslims who claim to be on the Book and the Sunnah, but they do not meet us on the methodology of the righteous Salaf. And so I always and forever dwell on this truth: it is not sufficient that the call of the Islamic preachers is truly today... it should not be that their call is limited to the Book and the Sunnah only. They must include in their call, and on the methodology of the righteous Salaf. The reason returns to two things: one relates to the Shari'ah texts, and the other relates to the real conditions related to all the Islamic sects. As for the first matter, related to the Shari'ah texts, we find in these texts a mention of something other than the Book and the Sunnah, as we find, for example, the saying of Allah the Exalted: If there were a guardian of affairs pledged to by the Muslims, it would be obligatory, as I explained just now, to obey him, just as it is obligatory for us to obey the Book and the Sunnah, even though this guardian of affairs may err, and those around him may err. But to prevent the harm of differing opinions, it is obligatory for us to obey this guardian, the guardian of affairs, under the condition mentioned just now: Here is a pause for the sake of the lesson only. The Tahrir Party adopts obeying the ruler even if he contradicts the Shari'ah in that. And this is a discussion that took place between me and them when we were gathered in prison in Syria. The prison is well known in a town called “Al-Hasakah.” And this prison, O professor, is from the virtues of that ugly man, Abd al-Nasser. It is a very strange prison; its height is about six meters, seven meters.

The questioner : For the sake of desire, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : It is for the sake of desire. Yes, the point is that the story is long, but the relevant part is this: I entered this very large hall, and there were about fifteen people from the Tahrir Party. There were many discussions between me and them. They hold that the ruler’s opinion must be implemented, outwardly and inwardly. So I gave them an example. I said: If the rulers adopt the opinion of the Kufi school, which distinguishes between intoxicants made from other than grapes and intoxicants made from grapes, and this is the school of the people of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y), and this school alone indicates to me that their affiliation with "opinion" is that very opinion which the pious predecessors (Salaf) condemned, otherwise they have no opinion, because it is a superficial and wretched thing. There are two intoxicants, one made from grapes and the other from corn, dates, or any other material. In their school, the first one is forbidden in small and large quantities, while the other is forbidden only in large quantities. I said: This means the research into it is long, but that is not the point here. So I said to the Tahriri: If the king or the Muslim ruler adopts this Kufi school and permits the import and consumption of wine made from other than grapes, would you obey him? He said: Yes, I would obey him, even though he considers it forbidden. So we said to him: Here, the lesson, may Allah reward you, is what do you do with his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): ? He said: And you were surprised, whatever you wished to be surprised about. He said: There is no obedience to a created being in disobedience to the Creator. If this created being considers what he has ordered to be disobedience, ah.

The questioner : If you please, Shaykh, he adopted the opinion of his Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is it. So we seek help from Allah. I wanted to say that the existing parties are based on contradicting the Shari'ah in many rulings, including the hadith of Hudhayfah, where he said that he distanced himself from all those sects, even if he had to bite on the trunk of a tree, but it is necessary to draw attention to what I mentioned earlier, which is that the Salafi call unites the Ummah, while any other call divides the Ummah. Our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, says in the Noble Qur'an: No one who separates the Book and the Sunnah on one hand, and the pious predecessors on the other, can ever be truthful. Why? I said earlier that there are two matters: one relates to the sacred texts, and the other relates to practical matters. We find in the Qur'an, for example, His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He: There is no doubt and no ambiguity that Allah, the Exalted, when He mentioned the path of the believers in the verse, did so for a profound and great wisdom and benefit, because the speech of Allah is elevated and free from futility. It could have been that the verse "And whoever opposes the Messenger after the guidance has become clear to him..." was sufficient, but He added and said: Why? To emphasize that there is another obligation, which is that our following of the Book and the Sunnah must be in accordance with what the first Muslims were upon. This is the intended meaning. They are the first Muslims, and the first group included are the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), then those who follow them, then those who follow them. So we have the Book of Allah, we have the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and we have the path of the believers. Now, the sects and parties, let alone the old and new schools, do not pay any attention whatsoever to following the path of the believers, which is supported by some hadiths. I refer to them because they are known to you. First, the hadith of the seventy-three sects, where he said: They are all in the Fire except one. They said: Who is that, O Messenger of Allah? He said: We find here that my Companions are in the pattern of His saying, the Exalted: Exactly. So it is not permissible for a Muslim today to say, "I understand from the Book and the Sunnah such and such," and then not look at what our pious predecessors were upon. Added to this hadith is the hadith of al-'Abbas ibn Sari'ah: and so on. So there are two Sunnahs: the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Therefore, for us who are later generations after these long centuries, we must return to the Book and the Sunnah and the path of the believers. Here the difference between us and the other existing groups today becomes apparent. As for the Khawarij, as for the Mu'tazilah, as for the Rafidah, these have contradicted the path of the believers, and they are those who were closest to them in what they were upon previously. But we today, as it is said: "Whoever sees the lesson in other than this, let him take heed." Why did these sects exist in the past? Because they followed their desires and did not adhere to this methodology, which is following the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the pious predecessors. In conclusion, I am telling you now about a discussion that took place between me and one of them, which makes it clear to you that it is not sufficient today for one of us, when asked, "What is your madhab?" to say, "Muslim." It is not sufficient, even though this is the original state. But you find matters that oblige people to have rulings and treatments for them. I said to one of them, who is a Muslim and claims to be upon the Book and the Sunnah, but according to his knowledge, this discussion will show you that the matter involves extreme precision. It is like another answer, or in another style, to the question that related to those who denied the Salafiyyah and affiliation with it. I said to him: O so-and-so, if a questioner asked you: What is your madhab? What would you answer him? He said: Muslim.
Abu Malik : Perhaps the discussion took place here in this room?

The Shaykh : Were you present or not? I don't think you were present, so perhaps we discussed it.
The questioner : Tape.

The Shaykh : Did you hear it? So there is no need for it. I said to him: This is a deviation. If I asked you, "What is your religion?" you would say, "I am a Muslim." But I did not ask you what your religion is; I asked you what your madhab is. This is first. Second, there is no difference between you and the Rafidi, the Khariji, the Ibadhi, and so on. He will be satisfied with your answer. And I want you to give an answer that clarifies your reality and advises people to be like you. So when you say, "I am a Muslim," and he says "Muslim," and that one says "Muslim," and so on, you know that the answer is incorrect. So he placed a restriction and said: "I am a Muslim upon the Book and the Sunnah." I said to him: This is also not sufficient. I am asking you a side question now: If I asked the Shi'i or the Ibadhi, would he say to you, "I am a Muslim, but I am not upon the Book and the Sunnah," or would he say your phrase? He said: He would say that. I said: So we need you to clarify your reality as well, and not to associate yourself with others whom you judge to be misguided and deviant from the Book and the Sunnah. The man, to a great extent in my belief, has fairness and objectivity, even though his knowledge is limited. It was also shown to him that this answer is not sufficient today. I said: So what do you say? He said: I say, "Upon the Book and the Sunnah and upon what the pious predecessors were upon." I said: Good. Every time someone asks you, and every time you are asked, do you want to give a lecture and say, "I am upon the Book and the Sunnah and upon the methodology of the pious predecessors"? Hehehe. I said to him: So you have said correctly, "and upon the methodology of the pious predecessors," meaning the madhab of the pious predecessors is the correct one. Good. I said to him: Whoever affiliates with this madhab is correct? He said: Yes. I said: So to summarize this whole lecture, do you think, from the Arabic perspective, that it is permissible for someone like me to say, "I am a Salafi," meaning one who affiliates with the Book and the Sunnah and is upon the methodology of the pious predecessors? So the man was silent. The least that can be said is that he was confounded, if not convinced. Yes, hehehe, beautiful. So the point, may Allah reward you, is that these are facts. If a person is heedless of them, he is far from the Book and the Sunnah, even if he claims to be upon the Book and the Sunnah.