Is the creed of the Ikhwan, al-Tahrir, and the Ahbash correct?

The questioner : Another question says:The questioner : Every sect says, "Our creed is correct," and accuses the others of having a corrupt creed. The Muslims are becoming more divided today, and they do not know which sect has the correct creed. So, is the creed of the Muslim Brotherhood correct? Is the creed of al-Tahrir Party correct? Is the creed of the Ahbash correct?

The Shaykh : This question, unfortunately, indicates ignorance. Allah the Exalted said: . And the hadith I referred to the end of earlier, in my description of the saved sect, I mentioned earlier that all Islamic sects, all Islamic groups, and all Islamic parties say, as you heard, "We are upon the Book and the Sunnah." But there is no one among them who says, except one single group: "We are upon the Book and the Sunnah and upon the methodology of the pious predecessors." So let the Muslim Brotherhood say, "We are upon the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the pious predecessors." Let al-Tahrir Party say this word, which is necessary. Let the Tabligh Jama'ah say it. And then, all the believers are brothers. But each of these groups has a specific methodology. It is enough for us now to remind you that none of these groups say what he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . They do not say this. They say "Book and Sunnah," and after that comes the chaos. This chaos that we are now living in, with its pains and effects. The old Islamic sects that you hear about: the Jabriyyah, the Murji'ah, the Mu'tazilah, the Khawarij, among them the Ibadis. None of these groups, ever, except that they say what he (peace and blessings be upon him) said.The questioner : "We are upon the Book and the Sunnah." Those who deny interpreting the Qur'an by the Qur'an or interpreting the Qur'an by the Sunnah, and instead interpret the Qur'an by the Arabic language, as they claim. The truth is that they interpret the Qur'an by their desires. Because the Arabic language, although it does not support the interpretation of many Qur'anic texts, nevertheless they play with the interpretation of some texts contrary to the rules of Arabic. The research into this is long and very long, and perhaps detailing and delving into this area is not appropriate now. But I give you one example by which you can measure the examples you know. One example may not be known by many of you. There is a sect that has not existed for a century in the Islamic nation, known as the Qadiani sect. Do you think that the Qadiani sect does not say: "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"? Do they not pray? Do they not fast? Do they not perform Hajj? No, they are with us in all of this. But nevertheless, they are not Muslims, without doubt. They are worse than the Nusayriyyah, the 'Alawiyah, and the Druze, and so on, because those do not pray, do not fast, and do not perform Hajj. But the Qadianis, if you see them, they do not say anything but this. It is from us and in us, but they are not Muslims. Why? Because they interpreted the Qur'an by their desires. They claimed that there are prophets who come after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). They denied the texts of the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of the pious predecessors that there is no prophet after Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and that he is the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers. They said: "Your statement or your argument by the saying of Allah the Exalted: . This is your understanding, and the correct understanding is: hold your breath, do not laugh, but be amazed at what has befallen the Islamic world. Not in this time, but in every time, the deviation from the Salafi methodology. They said: . The meaning of the verse is not as you say, "the last of the prophets," but rather "the adornment of the prophets"! Just as the ring is the adornment of the finger, so it is the adornment of the prophets. They nullified the verse and denied its meaning, and they said with that misguidance. And indeed, they claimed that a man came there in India, in a village named Qadian. A man emerged from it, and his misguidance developed. At first, he claimed righteousness, piety, and Sufism. Then, when some of the common people, followers of every caller, began to gather around him, he claimed to be the Mahdi, the one promised by the Messenger of Allah. Then he increased in the claim and claimed to be a prophet to whom revelation is sent, and he has a book. I read it, and its name is "The Truth of Revelation." From what he says and claims, that Allah spoke to him. He said to him: "O Ahmad, you are from Me in the position of my Tawhid. You are from Me in the position of my Tawhid." Like that, Allah claimed that He revealed to him. After that, he claimed to be 'Isa (peace be upon him), the one promised with his coming and descent from the sky in the last of time. Now, the followers of this misguided man are spread in America, Germany, and Britain. And I saw in Britain a mosque of theirs with written on it: "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." What did it benefit them, "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," while they denied one of the creeds of the Muslims? Did they deny the verse? Here is the point. Did they deny the verse? They did not deny the verse, but they went around it, doubled it, and distorted it. They prevented its meaning and came out with this meaning, which is "the adornment of the prophets" and not "the last of the prophets." Of course, there are texts in the Sunnah. If they unleashed their desires on the texts of the Qur'an, which is definitive in establishment by the consensus of the Muslims, do they not unleash their desires on the Sunnah? And some Muslims from the people of the Sunnah doubt in it, with philosophy of presumptive establishment. From a fortiori argument, for example, in the two Sahihs, that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he traveled to Tabuk to fight the Romans, left 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) in Medina. So he cried and walked with the Messenger while crying. So the Messenger consoled him and comforted him and said to them: . This is also a text that contradicts what they are in of misguidance, that there are prophets after the Messenger. This is one of them. This is Ahmad al-Qadiani. What did they do with the hadith? They did not do with the verse. They distorted the hadith and said: . Meaning, with me, I am in the position of my Tawhid in my lifetime. But after my death, there are prophets. And so on. Do not believe that a sect, no matter how much it reaches in misguidance, openly denies a text of the Qur'an. Even the Christians, who are openly disbelievers, take some verses to support their shirk and misguidance. So what about the old Mu'tazilah and the Ibadis who exist today? And so on. We are content with these two examples, one present and one past. This past one said in the saying of Allah the Exalted: . They said, "Looking, not to her Lord." Just as the Qadianis did, so they did. They said, "To her Lord" means "to the pleasure of her Lord." Looking, not to her Lord! They interpreted the verse, and the Arabic language really supports such an interpretation. There is no power or strength except by Allah. The examples are in the tens and hundreds. And therefore, whoever among you wants to be a true Muslim, and as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . Let him take this methodology and put it before him, and not be disturbed and ask, "What is your saying about the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Tahrir Party?" We say: whoever is with us upon what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, he is with us. Otherwise, no. And I know by my personal experience that in the Muslim Brotherhood there are individuals who dream of this methodology, but partisanship overcame them. In al-Tahrir Party, individuals carry this methodology, but the methodology of the group, and the group is not upon this at all. And the evidence is before you, and the experience is before you. Do you say what the pious predecessors were upon? Do you say: ? They say: "Book and Sunnah." Then the Book and Sunnah are interpreted as you heard, interpreted as in some of the examples. This is my answer to this question.