Mentioning Sayyid Qutb's words to comment on them.

The questioner : Sayyid Qutb says: "Belief in the oneness of worship is the foundation of a complete life methodology, not merely a dormant belief in the hearts. The boundaries of belief extend far beyond mere static belief."

The Shaykh : What is belief?

The questioner : Static.

The Shaykh : Static, what? Yes.

The questioner : It is as if it is a hint at the Murji'ah, without the awareness of those who do not let faith go beyond the heart.

The Shaykh : In the heart, yes.

The questioner : "The boundaries of belief expand and extend to encompass every aspect of life. The issue of sovereignty, as well as its branches, or the error in Islam, is an issue of belief. Sovereignty is an issue of belief, just as the issue of morals in its entirety is an issue of belief. From belief emanates the life methodology that includes morals and values, as well as conditions and laws, equally."

The Shaykh : Authentic

The questioner : Is this statement correct?

The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.

The questioner : Our brother says, commenting on this statement: "This is a true statement mixed with confusion. As for belief being the foundation of a complete life methodology, that is accepted."

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, good.

The questioner : And I approve of his entire statement.

The Shaykh : Good, good, yes.

The questioner : "As for the claim that the boundaries of belief expand and extend to encompass every aspect of life, this is not indicated by the Book or the Sunnah, nor did the scholars of Islam say it."

The Shaykh : This is a superficial man.

The questioner : Is this statement incorrect?

The Shaykh : Yes, we would like to understand who this is?

The questioner : I do not like him.

The Shaykh : You do not like him?

The questioner : Yes. "This is one of Sayyid Qutb's anomalies, by which he expands the circle of declaring people disbelievers." Do you not see that this is imposing what is not imposed?

The Shaykh : Yes, I see that.

The questioner : "Whoever opposes his methodology, he does not declare them disbelievers; rather, any one who opposes his methodology, Sayyid wants to declare him a disbeliever."

The Shaykh : We did not know that about him. I believe the man is not a scholar.

The questioner : Without a doubt, yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, but he has words, truly, especially in prison, as if they were from his inspiration.

The questioner : And despite that, he deviates from mentioning the shirk of graves.

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah.

The questioner : I say that I have found a statement by Ibn al-Qayyim in *I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in* that is exactly the same, saying that tawhid (the oneness of Allah) includes such and such, and includes such and such, and emanates from the heart to the limbs, and so on, resembling this statement. The truth is, they come from the side of interpreting the words of others, even though their brothers in belief and methodology, especially people like you and His EminenceThe Shaykh : Abdul Aziz ibn Baz and others, see that this matter does not tolerate such things that they have attributed to people's words.

The Shaykh : This is correct. On this occasion, when I was discussing with the people of al-Tahrir their departure and their misguidance in that a single-narrator hadith does not establish belief, and I was saying to them that your statement is a belief, and you condition for belief a decisive proof in authenticity and indication, where is the decisive proof that belief is not taken except from a hadith that is decisive in authenticity and indication? I proved to them that they are not in a state of belief since the founding of their party, because they developed in this specific issue through three stages and three statements. The first statement, which was separated in the first edition of their book—I do not remember its name now—but it has a chapter titled "The Path of Faith," where they say it is not permissible to take from a single-narrator hadith in belief, simply not permissible. Then the second edition of the book was published, and they replaced "not permissible" with "not obligatory," removing the word "not permissible" and placing "not obligatory," so now it is permissible to take from a single-narrator hadith in belief. Previously, they said it was not permissible; they changed it to not obligatory. Not obligatory means it gives you the freedom to take it if you wish or not to take it, whereas previously they said it was not permissible. This is the second development. The third development, and I do not know if they are still stable on it, is that they said it is obligatory to take from a single-narrator hadith, meaning belief (tasdiq) and not creed (aqidah). They play with words: belief, not creed. And peace be upon you and Allah's mercy and blessings. This discussion took place between me and some of the sons of your country, specifically when we gathered at the mosque, excuse me, the Hasakah prison. I found there 15 al-Tahrir party members, and they had one Aleppo-based president named Mustafa Bakri. Do you know Mustafa Bakri?

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : You do not know him, and al-Hamawi, who was their great debater, was like this: tall, blond, with a presence, or I will not say with an aura. Yes, the point is, I said to him, "My brother, you are enthusiastic for the party's belief, and you do not know it." He said, "How?" I said, "Do you not believe that the party previously held that it is not permissible to take from a single-narrator hadith in belief?" He said, "Yes, and that is our belief." I said to him, "No, they developed this and said it is not obligatory." He said, "Where?" I said, "The second edition." And finally, they said it is permissible to take, but with belief (tasdiq) and not with faith (iman) and belief (i'tiqad). God is Great, they play with words so that their retreat is not apparent to the members of their party. In any case, this is an introduction. I argued against them with matters they had no capacity to refute. I said to them, "My people, and this is the point regarding the statement we just heard: Islam, with everything it contains, must be belief. If you perform an obligation and strip it of belief, you have done nothing. If you stay away from a forbidden thing not because Allah forbade it, you have not worshipped Allah by this avoidance, and so on. Among the things I said was: if there were a distinction between belief and rulings, the opposite statement would be closer to the truth, because every ruling contains belief. If this ruling is stripped of belief, it is invalid, whereas not every belief contains what? An action. You can believe without any action being required of you regarding this belief, for example, belief in the punishment of the grave. They doubt it and say that the punishment of the grave is not established because there is no decisive proof in authenticity and indication. And we are, of course, not in the position of refuting their claim either. The point is, your belief that there is a punishment of the grave or that there is no punishment of the grave will not change anything in your starting point in your life or your work. Of course, in the end, it has an effect, but I want to distinguish between the legal rulings. Every ruling contains belief. You say this is forbidden, meaning you believe it is forbidden. You say this is obligatory, meaning you believe it is obligatory, and so on, the five rulings as they say. Therefore, all of Islam is belief. This is a fact, and this belief, at that time, must motivate its owner to respond to it. If it is mere belief in the unseen, he believes in the unseen. If it is belief in a legal ruling, he acts upon it in light of what the legal ruling contains. I gave them an example. I was afflicted there in Damascus with debating the Qadiyyan. Among the beliefs of the misguided Qadiyyan is that they believe that the two rak'ahs of Fajr, the sunnah, are obligatory. I am satisfied with this example. I say: two men, after the adhan of Fajr, stood up and prayed two rak'ahs. One with the intention of the sunnah, and this is correct, and the other with the intention of an obligation, and this is incorrect. The action is the same, but the intention differed. The intention invalidated the worship, and the intention validated the worship. Therefore, the criterion in all the rulings of Islam is belief. It is not permissible to separate belief in some of Islam without the rest, absolutely. This is a type of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) that we should be aware of.

The questioner : Here is an issue. Sometimes, our brothers in the matter of belief and others, when we say methodology, belief, and Shari'ah, like some verses of the Qur'an that detailed such things...

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

The questioner : Or the earlier scholars who said worships, belief, and transactions, do not distinguish between the terminology that is for teaching and studying or training

The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.

The questioner : and the original of the religion as a whole. Then here, it seems to me there are two observations. The al-Tahrir party and others, in addition to the fact that they do not understand the religion, they do not understand the Arabic language when they say belief (tasdiq) without creed (aqidah).

The Shaykh : Of course, this is contrary to the Qur'an.

The questioner : Yes, and this observation, the second observation, is the observation of terminology.The Shaykh Believer

The questioner : Meaning, their belief is refuted by the Salaf, the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), meaning, if I am correct,

The Shaykh : Yes, there is no power and no strength except by Allah.

The questioner : This is what necessitates belief.

Another questioner : O Shaykh, perhaps the man here in the article, when he said he wants to expand the scope of declaring someone a disbeliever, perhaps he meant by this that Sayyid Qutb said that the Muslim community now, in this era, is living in a state of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, not the first pre-Islamic age of ignorance, and he said that these are its mosques, they are shrines of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, and that Islam rejects the Islamization of these societies. I read it with my own eyes, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, did you go to Egypt?

Another questioner : No, I did not go.

The Shaykh : He is Egyptian; he is describing what he sees in the mosques regarding Sayyida Zaynab and al-Badawi, and so on.

Another questioner : So are all the mosques in Egypt like this?

The Shaykh : No, I do not mean all of them, and he does not say all of them, but he is speaking in general terms.

Another questioner : But he is generalizing about the societies, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : In any case, the man has died and passed into the mercy of Allah and His bounty. And as I advised you earlier, do not investigate individuals, especially if they have passed into the mercy of Allah.

The questioner : Can we not say here that if he intended by "pre-Islamic age of ignorance" the declaration of disbelief and the declaration of this community as disbelievers, then that is far from the truth? If he intended by his saying "pre-Islamic age of ignorance" that you do not pass through the street without gambling on your right, and the second shop selling intoxicants openly, the third a dance hall, the fourth a cinema, the fifth exposing women, the sixth imitating the dress of disbelievers, the seventh laws that are not Sharia-based, then if he intended something like this, as he said "pre-Islamic age of ignorance," then this is a statement that is not denied, rather he said...The Shaykh : Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said something stronger than this about the people. And as for if he intended the declaration of disbelief, then the matter, praise be to Allah, is clear. We distinguish, and we do not care about the man himself. If he intended the declaration of disbelief that expels one from the religion, then that is misguidance, and we reject it, and his matter is with Allah. And if his intention was the pre-Islamic age of ignorance that we see, then do not doubt with me that the matter is so.

The Shaykh : What is your kunya? What do they call you?

Another questioner : Abu Talhah.

The Shaykh : Abu Talhah. Look, O Abu Talhah, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, even if not on this occasion, What is the conclusion of the research regarding the words of Sayyid Qutb or others? Did he intend this or did he intend that?

Another questioner : The point is thatThe Shaykh : he mentioned the best of expressions...

The Shaykh : Do not deviate from the answer.

Another questioner : Okay, I did not intend to deviate, O Shaykh, I intended that this...The Shaykh : I am not speaking about whether you intended it or not; I am only reminding you. Do not deviate from the answer. Say what is the fruit of the research that Sayyid Qutb or others said such and such and such? What is the purpose of our narrating his words to you?

Another questioner : We now want to warn the people, because the people are elevated by the writings of this man, meaning that his printing and spread have even surpassed the writings of the Imams. O Shaykh, he has many doctrinal errors and he speaks about 'Uthman and expels...The Shaykh : Is this the answer?

Another questioner : I do not intend that for this reason, O Shaykh...

The Shaykh : Go ahead... please.