What is your comment on the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah that Salman al-Oudah cited regarding the obligation of jihad in our contemporary reality?

The questioner : I want to address the topic of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s words, Shaykh, when he said, and here... he spoke about the rulers and the signing of the United Nations Charter regarding the abandonment of jihad, and he spoke here of the great tragedy in the submission of the Muslim nations, unlike other peoples, sects, and religions, to this disbelieving law, their adherence to it, and their recitation of it at all hours of the night and the edges of the day, and their abandonment of the law of Allah, which considers faith in jihad and its performance an obligatory duty, and that those who refuse to do it are fought until they adhere to it, of course... fatwas, and I was
Abu Malik: I am surprised, I mean, not from the brother’s words... the brother Salman is truly still young and his age is not advanced.

The questioner : This is the word of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah; he is reporting that it is from the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.
Abu Malik: No, I am not speaking about his words; I am saying that I am surprised by the brothers who speak about jihad in this era as if they are speaking about jihad in the era of the Prophethood at the height of the Muslims’ victories in which they achieved many conquests, as if they are speaking about this meaning, glory be to Allah.

The Shaykh : And I want to draw attention to what he is saying, that this is the word of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah; this defense of Salman is weak; because he reports this word and adopts it, and not only that, but he spreads it, and as the professor told you, this word, my brother, is premature.

The questioner : No, the research in the topic now is about the rulers who signed the United Nations Charter and submitted to it and denied jihad; when you speak about the matter of jihad, it is as if they want to abolish it, and the speech is about this reality. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah speaks about the one who, for example, did not act by one of the laws of Islam, saying, “I do not refrain from acting by riba (usury or interest).” He is fought. He said, “I do not fight the hypocrites and I do not fight the disbelievers.” He is fought. The speech is about this, and I wanted us to research this, meaning there are two issues: the issue now is between saying that we declare the rulers disbelievers with the disbelief that takes one out of the religion, for example, and practical disbelief. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled that the one who abandons prayer is fought, even though we say he is not disbeliever with the disbelief that takes one out of the religion, but in our view, for example, it is practical disbelief, but even so, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled to fight him until he prays, and ruled to fight the one who withholds zakah (the obligatory alms) until he pays the zakah.
Abu Malik: No one disagrees with you on this.

The questioner : Good, so the research is connected to this.
Abu Malik: We agree with you on this, but I am speaking about the manner of speaking and the time in which he speaks in this style and this speech. As for the words, no one denies this word of Ibn Taymiyyah, and the word is the same word as the brother Salman’s.

The questioner : No, the legal ruling, no one denies it at all, my dear brother.
Khushan: No; there are multiple matters. Now, the attack on Salman and Safer, and on everyone who spoke about obliging these governments in jihad, that they are... or everyone who called for al-hakimiyyah (sovereignty), that this is calling for al-hakimiyyah, and this...
Abu Malik: Why do they use the term al-hakimiyyah, I mean.

The questioner : For example, they [attack] everyone who says the name, any word, al-hakimiyyah.
Abu Malik: You are now repeating after them.

The questioner : We are not repeating after them, but when we argue...
Abu Malik: No. I say... al-hakimiyyah and the speech about it and its repetition is an error from the legal and linguistic standpoint.

The questioner : How do you mean?
Abu Malik: We will speak about it later.

The questioner : My dear brother, from the legal standpoint, what I understand is that when we say that the one who does not refer to the correct, established Sunnah in a partial or secondary issue of the religion, and we argue against him with His saying, the Exalted: , and we return it to a creedal issue, and why? Because he is contradicting a correct text from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and we return to connect it to the creed, and it is a secondary issue, we connect it to the creed on this basis, so it is not permissible for us to leave the rulers who have destroyed the foundations of the religion, for example, in jihad and other than jihad, who signed the United Nations Charters, and leave them, and they do not want to cut off the hand of the thief, nor stone the adulterer, nor establish the limits of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic...

The Shaykh : What do you mean by the word “we leave them”?

The questioner : We do not command, we do not advise them, we do not enjoin good, we do not forbid evil. Regarding the reality of the Ummah (the Muslim community) now, the big campaign around Salman and Safer is because they took this stance in the last fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), so now they want to say that these are partisans, and Muslim Brothers, they argue about them with this accusation and this speech in order to bring them down and strengthen the rulers against them. The attack on them now is like this, strengthening the rulers of Saudi Arabia...
Abu Malik: Muslim rulers...

The questioner : No, never mind, the research is not this, now the research is about Abdullah al-Sabt andThe Shaykh : Rabee and others, I do not know what is the state of Rabee, but around another group, now they are carrying a campaign against these people, and they are standing in the line of defending the Saudi government, and in a campaign against these people, how is this said? We leave, meaning let us say that Salman erred and Safer erred, so we stand against these people and support the Saudi government against them, how is this said? And others and others, yes, the issue is, meaning, a dangerous one, it is not an easy issue.
We do not say except, for example, that now among the brothers there are errors, among the revolutionaries there are errors, among the Islamic groups there are many errors, but the errors of these people, it is not permissible for us to magnify them, for example, and overlook the reality of the rulers as well, and the hypocrites who placed the Ummah in this state in which it is, so also the problem becomes that we want to take the safest path, which is the one that makes us...
Abu Malik: ... if I mean, they take my opinion in the matter, I do not speak about the rulers at all.

The questioner : Why?
Abu Malik: I do not speak, neither praise nor blame, nor takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) nor faith, nor condemnation nor disparagement, nor, I do not speak about them in anything.

The questioner : It is not permissible.
Abu Malik: No, it is permissible, rather it is obligatory that you do not speak about them.

The questioner : It is not permissible.
Abu Malik: I tell you why; because first, the rulers have become oppressive to the peoples and the whole Ummah, it is known who the rulers are. Second, my speech about them and my talk, if I attack them, I will provoke them against me more, and I will make the path I am walking on have barriers. I now have a path I am walking on in da'wah (calling others to Islam), and I call people to Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, and I explain to them the legal rulings, who is better, do you think, that I provoke the rulers and they sit and fight me?

The questioner : I mean, when I am asked about the ruling of a legal issue and the man-made laws contradict it, what will be the ruling in it?
Abu Malik: ... the ruling of Allah in it.

The questioner : Good. When I am asked about the rulers, that they rule by the law of Allah? I say: No; they do not rule by the law of Allah. Good, what is the ruling in...
Abu Malik: Is... for the Salafis, this is the question that the one who asks you asks, cold and stupid and little in intellect, truly... this is a trap, Shaykh Ali.

The questioner : Never mind, I do not tell you that there is no trap.
Abu Malik: The rulers themselves do not know that they do not rule with what Allah has not sent down? They know this completely.

The questioner : Good, so when they say about themselves that they are Muslims and do not want the law of Allah, and do not want that you... never mind, they are Muslims, so we must treat them and hold them accountable on the basis of Islam, so the Muslim...
Abu Malik: You hold them accountable on the basis of Islam?

The questioner : Correcting them, advising them... meaning the issue needs clarification, meaning that we leave advising them, and it is obligatory to advise them, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) says: .
Abu Malik: Do you know, I want to tell you something, Shaykh 'Ali. This man, our Shaykh, may Allah reward him with good and do him good, I know him better than you do, and everyone knows thatThe Shaykh : Nasser, when he is asked about declaring a Muslim a disbeliever, not about declaring a disbeliever a disbeliever, he is cautious and waits, and it is with difficulty that the word of declaring someone a disbeliever is extracted from him until it is proven as clear as the sun that he is a disbeliever. Do you know? And his gatherings testify to this for him, and the people who take from him testify to this for him.
And with this, why am I telling you this? This dragging in and these questions are not intended for the face of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, but rather they are intended to cause harm and fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), and to push the people of truth away from their positions where they proclaim the truth to the people as much as they are able, and where they clarify the ruling of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, in the matters they are asked about. It is said aboutThe Shaykh : Nasser that he declares so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so disbelievers, from among those who say, "There is no god but Allah." And they are not even known to him. What do you think? Why? Why is this? Because this is due to bad transmission.
Now, when you come to speak, do you want to ask about so-and-so, whether he is a disbeliever or a believer? And whether his characteristic is tall or short, or broad or thin? How much will people transmit from you, especially if there are those who do not fear Allah, Mighty and Majestic, and who want nothing but to harm people and inflict damage upon them? How much? Therefore, may Allah bless you, we should occupy ourselves with what is beneficial, with what brings good to all Muslims. I mean, I say that when you speak this speech, perhaps you benefited this small group or this person who asked you, but in reality, you have never benefited the Muslims; you did not benefit them. And the proof of this, the greatest proof, is when the Algerians came to this country and went to Iraq, and we spoke with them, and the head of the Hajj came to the country, and so on, and we spoke with them, meaning, with what the right of advice to the Muslim requires. And our Shaykh, may Allah reward him with good, sat with them for a very long session. I remember that one day, our Shaykh called us before dawn, or at dawn, I think, and said to me, "Do you know what this man, 'Ali al-Bilhaj, is issuing a fatwa about?" He says that it is obligatory now for Muslims from all corners of the world to gather for Hajj so that they can occupy the two Holy Sanctuaries... So our Shaykh was saying this to me. I said to him, "By Allah, this needs investigation and verification." After a while, he said to me, "We have verified it. Some of the brothers from Algeria called me and mentioned this speech." We sent a message to 'Ali al-Bilhaj, and of course, I tookThe Shaykh : permission for it, a verbal message that we carried to our brothers there, and they went. The result was that everything we told them, they contradicted. And now they wish... I wish for them that they would return to the speech we said; because it is the confrontation.