A word from the Shaykh regarding the cause of the disagreement that has arisen among the Salafis.

The Shaykh : ... I recall, and remembrance benefits the believers, that I was in the path of bringing closer the Salafi brothers who, unfortunately, are estranged from one another for reasons that, in my opinion, do not warrant such estrangement, turning away, and mutual hatred. In the course of seeking to identify the cause, my question was very clear: "O Khalid, give us the greatest disagreement between us and these brothers in matters of creed." I say that usually, unfortunately, but no, there is no regret, for you, praise be to Allah, did not bring up an example. So this is something that rejoices us and does not sadden us. You only brought up a lecture delivered by the man, in which he ruled that a class of open sinners are apostates. But there is no intellectual or creedal disagreement between us and them, especially since you undoubtedly know their lectures and books, in which they explicitly state that their creed follows the methodology of the righteous Salaf, particularly in the matter of declaring someone a disbeliever, and that they are against the Khawarij, and that they do not declare a disbeliever for committing a major sin, is that not so?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : If this principle, may Allah bless you, exists among us all, then when we come across a phrase from one of them that suggests a disagreement with what is known about them, it is not permissible, may Allah bless you, for us to cling to it and break the rule on which they agree with us. Rather, we should try to find an acceptable and reasonable interpretation for such a statement that may appear to contradict the creed agreed upon between us, as we mentioned earlier. And I think you also explicitly stated that this statement is wrong. Is our research here whether it is wrong or not? Is it, for example, a rhetorical statement or a creedal one? That is not our subject. Our subject is: bring evidence from their explicit statements that they declare a disbeliever for committing a major sin. And this does not exist. In fact, the opposite is what exists. So this word is interpreted in light of that rule. And I mentioned earlier that such a statement may come from us, who think we are cautious in issuing judgments. Something may come from us, and we are not there, and we did not think that people would understand it differently from what we intend. Every person is prone to slip in expressing what is settled in his heart and within himself. But truly, I do not understand from this phrase that the man contradicts what we know about him, namely that he does not declare a Muslim a disbeliever for committing a major sin, and that he reiterates that declaring a Muslim a disbeliever for a major sin is the doctrine of the Khawarij, and he is explicitly against them. So we have a way out, my brother: we interpret this statement in a way that aligns with a meaning we agree upon, which we mentioned before, that it is understood from the demeanor of these open sinners that they consider that open sinfulness and licentiousness permissible in their hearts. No, by Allah, he is mistaken. Suppose he is mistaken, but he is not mistaken in creed; he is mistaken in judging a specific person. You know well that the judicial judge who rules with what Allah has revealed rules with the killing of one who kills intentionally, but based on witnesses? The witnesses may be false, so he rules with the killing of an innocent soul, but he is mistaken. He is mistaken, but the principle on which he based the killing is not wrong. So, may Allah bless you, we want to hold onto the principles, not the branches that are applied to the principles, whether correctly or incorrectly. Therefore, I advise you not to let such words be a cause of division between you and them, as long as the principles are agreed upon by you. And what I mentioned earlier regarding our brother—and I say our brother in the unseen, for I have not met him and he has not met me—and he is: say with me, Safer al-Hawali. You mentioned that on one hand he distinguishes between creedal disbelief and practical disbelief, but on the other hand he does not distinguish regarding the sovereignty of Allah the Exalted and Majestic. I also think this is a point that requires careful consideration, because we also say that the sovereignty of Allah does not accept division. Perhaps he means this. As for him ruling that everyone who contradicts the Shari'ah in a specific issue, in a specific government, is a disbeliever, I do not think the man says this. Do you have evidence for this?