If the state does not adopt the jurisprudence of reality, is it obligatory for students of knowledge to study reality and provide its results to the state?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : I say, my Shaykh, regarding what you mentioned earlier about the jurisprudence of reality, that the state does not adopt this jurisprudence, and this jurisprudence is within the capability of students of knowledge, or some students of knowledge, does that not imply that students of knowledge should do what the state has left, since they are actually capable of doing it?

The Shaykh : What is the benefit?

The questioner : Warn the Muslims, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : What?

The questioner : Warning the Muslims, beware of what they left, for they did not leave you. . .

The Shaykh : We took heed, and the state rules us and proceeds contrary to our wishes. What is the benefit?

The questioner : We take heed from them and from that, from the state and from others.

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah.

The questioner : Whether it is inside or outside, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The topic has developed now, my brother.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Because the intention in knowing the jurisprudence of reality is that we stand firm against the plans of the enemies.

The questioner : The enemies have multiplied, my Shaykh. The enemies, my Shaykh, may be from outside, or they may be among us. For example, what is the benefit now of exposing the secularists or exposing the Freemasons or such? We warn against them inside and we warn the sons of Muslims, and likewise we take heed of external plots, and we warn the Muslims, perhaps Allah (Mighty and Majestic) — we are presenting what is upon us of what Allah has made obligatory upon the select group of students of knowledge in the jurisprudence of reality, and the rest, if they take it up, they take it up.

The Shaykh : It is as if you were not present for our discussions. We said and repeated, in your presence, that the jurisprudence of reality is a collective obligation.

The questioner : Yes, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : So you are now adding to this statement.

The questioner : No, by Allah...

The Shaykh : Be patient a little, for this is a collective obligation; if some perform it, it drops from the rest. We said and agreed, I think with Professor Abu Badr, that this collective obligation is not imposed on students of knowledge, nor on the general scholars, but only on a group of them.

The questioner : If they do not take it upon themselves, my Shaykh, for example.

The Shaykh : My brother, this is not the topic. Are we not in the process of guidance? Are we not in the process of guidance and teaching? Why don't you answer me?

The questioner : My Shaykh, yes, we are in the process.

The Shaykh : Is the problem complex?

The questioner : No, it is easy, my Shaykh, but...

The Shaykh : Are we not in the process of guidance? And so we brought this point that there is a jurisprudence called the jurisprudence of reality, and that it is a collective obligation; if some perform it, it drops from the rest. Are we not in the process of guidance, reminding, and teaching?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I will tell you, based on your lack of responsiveness to me in my attempt to move you from students of knowledge to a group of scholars, I will now start in a different way. So I ask: do we impose this jurisprudence on the general Muslims to perform, and not on students of knowledge, or will you say no?

The questioner : Of course, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Not the general Muslims, but a portion of their select group, or a group of their select group, who are the students of knowledge.

The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Is that not so?

The questioner : Due to the qualification, yes.

The Shaykh : Did you see how you got ahead of me? Am I disagreeing with you on the operative cause?

The questioner : No, our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Why did you justify it?

The questioner : I am sorry, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : So that the journey would be longer for us.

The questioner : I seek forgiveness from Allah.

The Shaykh : I am now asking you why we did not impose it? Your answer will be the one you got ahead to, and you said due to the qualification. I will tell you now: this qualification, which we agreed is the reason preventing us from imposing this collective obligation on the general Muslims to perform, is this qualification more complete and stronger in students of knowledge or in scholars? You will also say, as you said with me earlier: No, students of knowledge are more deserving than the general Muslims, correct?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : I think, I think I will say, out of good opinion, that the scholars are more in this qualification than the students of knowledge? Correct or not?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Good, so we have now reached two agreements. Now we say: is every Muslim scholar in every land of the world imposed with this specialization, or a group of them?

The questioner : A group, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Now we have reached and agreed that the collective obligation is imposing on a group of Muslim scholars in the jurisprudence of reality, correct?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Fine, now I go back and say: what do you think if we spoke about this topic, which is a collective obligation on a group of Muslims, and we occupied the general Muslims with it? Is this from the Shari'ah policy?

The questioner : Rather, it is not permissible.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. You added to me; I did not dare to say to Abu Badr that this is not permissible. Fine, keep going with me as you have been accustomed to do earlier.

The questioner : May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : I say earlier because this is the reality. Now I will say from the same starting point: since this is a collective obligation on a group of scholars, is it from the Shari'ah policy to include the general students of knowledge, many of whom perhaps have not performed the individual obligatory knowledge upon them? Is that from the Shari'ah policy?

The questioner : It is not from the Shari'ah policy.

The Shaykh : So we have reached a common word, and praise be to Allah, and there is no problem.

The questioner : On another point, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Bring it.

The questioner : A little while ago you mentioned that these issues are not raised before the general people. So there are priorities in the da'wah, and specifics and generalities. Perhaps this is secret talk we speak of and do not disclose before the people, and it may harm us if...

The Shaykh : We place it in the wrong place.

The questioner : Yes, whether it is from the general Muslims, it harms us in the Hereafter or in this world before those who hear it from those who are lying in wait for us. So there are things that are not disclosed before the general people, unlike what is written here, my Shaykh, for example, it says: "Secrecy in work: many of these callers plan their programs and consider their ideas on two parallel levels. The first is public lectures, which they hold on the basis of seasonal da'wah, crammed with political engagement, in support and relief. That is, they say, yes, some of their gatherings are not devoid of jurisprudential or creedal lessons, but they are delivered in a manner with several objectives that flow into one outlet, serving in the end the desired programs to be achieved and the desired theories to be spread and implemented." I say, my Shaykh, and Allah knows best, that this is certainly... The second point is the secret grouping, which is the intent of this discussion, for you see these callers...

The Shaykh : What, what, why did you stand up?

The questioner : You see, you are the callers, in parentheses, because, my Shaykh, "they spend most of their lives in da'wah in the corridors of secrecy, organizing the youth and partying them, and considering for them their ideas and directions in the same mold, and the same method, and they think that they are doing well, and this secrecy in its reality is suppression of energies and killing of serious, comprehensive work."

The Shaykh : And so on. What is your observation?

The questioner : And so on. I say, my Shaykh, that perhaps this talk has... perhaps in it there is correct and there is incorrect. The correct of it, in my belief, is yes, we may plan, we speak of how the methodology of da'wah to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is, in a way that is not said before the common people. We have a mosque, for example, I cannot say to my brother Murad next to me, "contain the youth in the mosque to the Salafi da'wah." If I said it in front of them, these youth would think that we have a Salafi organization, which might affect them and they would turn away from us. So this became an event between me and many of the brothers that we wanted to contain some mosques in the Salafi da'wah, but without the knowledge of the youth, so the youth does not know until he becomes with us a Salafi, and he follows the methodology of the people of the Salaf al-Salih.

The Shaykh : Yes, so this is acknowledging the truth, and it is necessary, and it is correct, correct?

The questioner : This happened, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you.

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : What is the difference between me saying to you correct or not? You tell me it happened. I did not deny, my brother, whether it happened or not. I believed in what you believed in, perhaps and perhaps, but you separated one of the two "perhapss," correct?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Now, does this second "perhaps" have a reality? The second "perhaps" means, in brief, from the talk, there is a lawful secrecy, and you rambled around it, correct?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And this means there is an unlawful secrecy.

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I wonder if this writer intends both secrets or does not intend either of them? I hope the answer is clear, and this is not dictation but a suggestion. That is, you say, "Yes, he intends both" or "he intends one of them." If you say both, I understand you, and when I look at your answer, if you say one of them, I ask you which one. Do you see how I am looking at you?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I am not dictating to you.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. So now, whether this writer is Abu Badr or someone else, did he mean the two secrets that you expressed with "and" and "and," or did he intend one of them?

The questioner : Okay, my Shaykh, excuse me if I answered that it is the writer himself... then you correct me, or he corrects it.

The Shaykh : I excuse you; I am asking you for an answer.

The questioner : I am answering, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : In your way or in my way?

The questioner : My Shaykh, there is a difference in terminology.

The Shaykh : I am asking you now, Glorified is Allah, I am asking you: do you answer in my way or in your way?

The questioner : In your way, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. So what is my question?

The questioner : Your question is that I answer with "yes" or "no" regarding which way the writer intended.

The Shaykh : No, was that not it? Did he intend the two secrets or one of them?

The questioner : There is confusion, my Shaykh, in the matter.

The Shaykh : What is the confusion?

The questioner : Because I have often heard from my brother Ali...

The Shaykh : My brother, leave Ali alone, may Allah guide you. You have the text of this letter.

The questioner : Ali's letter...

The Shaykh : ... This writer who wrote this text either intends the two secrets or intends one of them. Do not hold it against me for a third time or more, forcing me to repeat my clear words, which are like the sun in the clear day. Will you force me to repeat it a fourth and fifth time? Say no, if Allah wills.

The questioner : No, my Shaykh, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : So do you have an answer?

The questioner : I have an answer, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : In my way?

The questioner : That he intended all the secrecy, meaning he denies all the secrecy, in this and that. The evidence for that is...

The Shaykh : Is there a need for evidence?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Did we not agree on this? I said if you answer with an answer and I need detail, then I ask you. If you want not to detail, that is fine, but if you feel I am not in need, why do you want to offer me food that I do not need?

The questioner : You are right.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. Now I say if he intends what I said earlier and what I attributed to him, he is mistaken, and he is in front of you now. What is your opinion, are you with me or with Ali?

The questioner : No, my Shaykh, I am with you.

The Shaykh : Glorified is Allah, why am I infallible?

The questioner : No, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : ... Are you with me in everything I say? In everything I say? That is not reasonable.

The questioner : No, it is not reasonable.

The Shaykh : That is it.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good for this precision.

The Shaykh : Now I say if he says as I said, he is mistaken. Did you agree with me and I agreed with you, or not? So the lecture you wanted to dictate to me, or the evidence you wanted to present to me, do I need it?

The questioner : No, he does not need it.

The Shaykh : And now take an example from my method of discussing your companion Murad and Hassan, and so on. I have a plan that I understood from the Book of Allah and the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So from now on, you have agreed with me and I have agreed with you by the shortest path. Why? Because you submitted to the truth. So now, which one is present? I wonder if he is the one who is mistaken and admits his mistake, or will he say no? What he understood is not from the Book, but from what I wanted to detail earlier...