Mentioning the words of Salman al-Oudah for the purpose of commenting on them.

The questioner : I say the truth: in many issues, people are between excess and negligence. Either there are people who do not understand the call to tawhid (the oneness of Allah) except as the call to... except the tawhid of sovereignty alone, and they leave people in their major shirk (associating partners with Allah), which they now call the shirk of graves. Or there are other people who do not like, but rather are sensitive about, the [sovereignty]; as soon as a person says that tawhid includes sovereignty for Allah the Exalted, they are sensitive about this issue and do not pay attention to it, neither from near nor far. Rather, they [focus on] what is called the shirk of graves. And if we are just in the issue, the truth is known: that the call to tawhid is the call to the tawhid of sovereignty, that sovereignty belongs to Allah. And much of the book, and the truth is said, that sometimes, by sovereignty, through our reading, they mean absolute sovereignty, that the whole matter returns to Allah the Exalted. And sometimes they mean the politics that they went astray behind. So from justice and fairness, we say that tawhid includes both aspects. If this speech is understood, my brother, that if the Prophets had only prevented people from [worshipping] graves, no one would have objected to them. This is the gist of the speech. But in a second point, my brother, and with permission from our beloved Shaykh, the speech is not to be understood as the understanding of the man who understood it as the reader understood it, otherwise many people would have gone astray. But it is to be understood as the speech of the other man, either in other contexts or from his reality. If the man is known for tawhid and for comprehensive tawhid, and is a caller to this tawhid, or he is from the monotheists, then if he says a word or two words, it is not to be taken in the worst sense. Because if it were taken in this sense, he would be a zindiq (heretic) in every sense of the word and would have exited the religion of Islam. Then we see that his reality is not so. This is a matter worthy [of attention]. And by the way, taking speech or taking it in the worst sense is a rule that is not among the rules of the people of the Sunnah and the community. I mention now, my Shaykh, by the way, how some of our noble brothers took this same speech in a bad sense, and perhaps you will correct us.

The Shaykh : What speech?

The questioner : Speech like this speech: Sayyid Qutb says in some of his books: "The worship of idols to which Ibrahim (peace be upon him) called upon his Lord to keep him and his sons away from it does not represent only that naive image that the Arabs practiced in their jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic age of ignorance), or that various polytheisms practiced in various forms, embodied in stones or trees or animals or birds or stars or fire or spirits or ghosts. This naive image in its entirety does not exhaust the images of shirk (associating partners with Allah) with Allah, nor does it exhaust all the images of worshipping idols other than Allah. Stopping at the meaning of shirk at this naive image prevents us from seeing the other images of shirk which are endless, and prevents us from the correct vision of the reality of what afflicts humanity in images of shirk."

The Shaykh : What afflicts.

The questioner : "What afflicts humanity in images of shirk and the new jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic age of ignorance). It is necessary to delve into understanding the nature of shirk (associating partners with Allah) and the relationship of idols with it, as it is necessary to delve into the meaning of idols and the embodiment of their abstract, renewing forms with the newly established jahiliyyahs (the pre-Islamic age of ignorance)." We want our Shaykh's comment, then we will read the comment of one of the noble brothers on this speech.

The Shaykh : There is no doubt that this speech means sound speech to the extent of a hundred percent. And that is sufficient in that Allah the Exalted said in the Noble Qur'an: The interpretation that came for this verse, when it was revealed, was that it was revealed regarding the Christians, and among the Arabs who became Christian in the jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic age of ignorance), despite the fewness of those who became Christian among them, was 'Adi ibn Hatim al-Tai. Then Allah the Exalted guided him and he became Muslim in a story mentioned in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and others. And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. When this verse was revealed, it was difficult for 'Adi ibn Hatim al-Tai because he understood it to mean the shirk (associating partners with Allah) that the man denies that all shirk is limited to this type of idol worship and polytheisms. So he said to him (peace and blessings be upon him), clarifying for them the broader, more comprehensive meaning of shirk (associating partners with Allah) in following other than His Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law), he said to him: So now, this type of shirk is not observed even by those who declare that sovereignty belongs to Allah the Exalted. And I mention, on this occasion, when I was in Damascus, and specifically in the Yarmouk Camp, and specifically in the Salah al-Din Mosque, when a young man from the Muslim Brothers ascended the minbar (the pulpit) and delivered a fiery sermon that sovereignty belongs to Allah the Exalted. Subhan Allah (Glory be to Allah), when he prayed and finished the prayer, look now how he drew my attention to an error, and I forgot now what the error was. I said to him, this is contrary to the Sunnah. He said, but I am Hanafi. I said, my brother, may Allah guide you. Your entire sermon now is that sovereignty belongs to Allah the Exalted. So what is the meaning of sovereignty except that if a law comes from a disbeliever that is contrary to the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law), that is disbelief, and that you must hold fast to the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law). But if a ruling comes from a Muslim that is contrary to the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law), do you follow him despite his contradiction of the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law)? Where is the sovereignty for Allah the Exalted? This meaning is truly comprehensive and inclusive, and it is better when it means refuting the doubt of one who might stop and say only, that is, not only shirk (associating partners with Allah), this is it, so he expanded the meaning. And this expansion is Islam. And so we say that stopping at fighting the shirks of the individuals of the people and leaving the rulers who rule by other than what Allah revealed, and this does not mean that we enter into the depths of takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) and expelling them from the religion. It is sufficient that they rule by other than what Allah revealed, and the detail by which we declare our faith in Allah, that there is disbelief less than disbelief, in practical disbelief and in creedal disbelief. This true detail is what makes us moderate and not hasten to declare rulers disbelievers without distinguishing between a ruler who believes in what Allah legislated but follows his desire in some of his contradiction of what Allah legislated. This aspect of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) must also be worked on by the callers. But the truth is, I say a frank word: I say that the callers of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) today are in a bitter trial. And every decision that is issued, you find the answer: is this a matter of the wali al-amr (the one in authority) or not, is it, yes, Zayd, or no? This is the wali al-amr (the one in authority). We returned and fell into what we warn against. Why do we not then turn to the call in general, and not only in what concerns the people? This phrase is exactly like the word "only" there, so he limited it to stopping at fighting the shirks related to the people and leaving the rulers without advice, without warning, without refutation, even without exiting [the community]. Is the answer clear?

The questioner : Does this not imply confrontation?

The Shaykh : No, it does not imply, of course, this is no exiting.

The questioner : One of the noble brothers commented with the following:

The Shaykh: Tell us so we can see.

The questioner : Regarding this speech, as if I understand it, it is the speech of Ibn al-Qayyim in a modern style. In this speech, first, there is belittling of the calls of the Prophets...

The Shaykh : Is this the speech of Ibn al-Qayyim?

The questioner : Which focused on the worship of idols and statues. Yes, is there belittling in that?

The Shaykh : Clear.

The questioner : Yes, meaning no.

The Shaykh : Of course.

The questioner : Okay, secondly, there is diverting the callers from the greatest and largest types of kufr (disbelief) and shirk (associating partners with Allah) that every Prophet and Messenger and reformer fought, and they realized that it is the greatest danger to humanity. Is there diverting in this speech?

The Shaykh : There is no diverting.

The questioner : It does not exist. Thirdly, there is mixing between the issues of major and minor shirk (associating partners with Allah) and between the issues of sins, small and large.

The Shaykh : And where is this?

The questioner : By Allah, I did not understand it. I tell you, where?

The Shaykh : Ah, do you understand it or without understanding?

The questioner : In sha Allah (if Allah wills), I understand. Some people see that the issue of sovereignty and the ruler in general is minor shirk (associating partners with Allah), and as for the shirk of graves, it is absolutely major shirk (associating partners with Allah). And they do not distinguish between practical shirk and creedal shirk except regarding the ruler. And they do not apply this to the people who fall into shirk (associating partners with Allah), as it is called, in the shirk of graves. They see that there is no detail in this. That is, any shirk (associating partners with Allah) that the man brings in the shirk of graves, he is out of the religion without detail, without ignorance.

The Shaykh : Without... establishing the proof.

The questioner : And so on. As for that, there is a detailed explanation. Perhaps, if I am correct and guided, it is like this: there is confusion in it, even though he mentioned some novel words. Then the second point: they say that describing shirk (associating partners with Allah) as "naive" is certainly naive. So I do not know if they understand what "naive" means or not? They say that those who worship idols commit naive shirk, but those who worship, and what they worship, and obey and do things like the beautiful hadith I mentioned, that is also included in shirk.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.

The questioner : And then, necessarily...

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : How? How?