The Shaykh Al-Albani and Ibrahim Shuqqa’s clarification of the error in Salman’s statement when he said (And despite all this and that, Muslims—meaning those who care about Islam—

The Shaykh: Pause for a moment on these disagreements. Where does the speech begin?

The questioner: He says here: “And despite all this and that, Muslims—meaning those among them who care about Islam—are still mired in fierce disagreements over issues that are not from the fundamentals of the religion and its great principles, nor from the points of consensus that it is not permissible to violate; rather, they are not even from the practical issues of life that affect the present or the future.”

The Shaykh: What is the remedy for this? Put a question mark in the margin.

The questioner: Here or here?

The Shaykh: What is the remedy for this?

The questioner: As he clarified before, regarding adherence to the Book, the Sunnah, and valid evidence.

The Shaykh: No, no, not that. Let Professor Abu Malik share with us on this point. Perhaps you can share with us on this paragraph.

The questioner: It was not from the beginning the book “Wasail li Daf’ al-Ghurba” by Salman Fawwaz al-’Uda. He was speaking about the mutual recognition between the Victorious Group and the cooperation of the Victorious Group among themselves. He says, and despite all this and that, Muslims are still... naturally, before that he was speaking about the strength of the enemies and the media and their planning and so on.
Abu Malik: He said, and despite all this and that...

The questioner: He says: When the Islamic da’wah possesses nothing of that whatsoever, except for a negligible amount that can hardly address even the smallest fraction of Muslims, let alone others, and possesses nothing noteworthy of means of influence and attraction. And despite all this and that, Muslims—meaning those among them who care about Islam—

The Shaykh: Who?

The questioner: Those who care about Islam, meaning he intends the Islamic groups, are mired in fierce disagreements over issues that are not from the fundamentals of the religion and its great principles, nor from the points of consensus that it is not permissible to violate; rather, they are not even from the practical issues of life that affect the present or the future.
So I ask! When will Muslims wake up from their long slumber?

The Shaykh: But what is this point?
Abu Malik: It is strange. This point is strange. He overlooked this long and broad disagreement in the fundamentals of the religion and its principles. How is this?

The Shaykh: No, he says that they are still searching and disagreeing over what is not from the fundamentals of the religion.
Abu Malik: I am saying that the disagreement among Muslims now is like what they say is in the husks; it is a disagreement in the core of the core.

The Shaykh: No, and may Allah bless you. It is no doubt that the reality includes both disagreements: disagreement in the branches and disagreement in the fundamentals, according to the known classification. So he wants to direct the Islamic society which is still disagreeing over issues that are not from the fundamentals.

The questioner: I mean, even among the Salafis themselves, for example, we find disagreement among them in the branches, and quarreling and boycotting and hostility, and these are branch-level disagreements.
Abu Malik: Allow me to say to you: we are not now speaking about the disagreement within one group that agrees on one set of fundamentals in creed and in religion. I am speaking about the disagreement among Muslims in general; because he is not speaking about a specific group of Muslims, he is speaking about Muslims in general. So the disagreement among Muslims, as mentioned,The Shaykh : Nasser: His speech addresses this, or the reality is that disagreement exists in the fundamentals and exists in the branches, but the disagreement in the branches, its origin is the disagreement in the fundamentals. The origin of the disagreement in the branches is the disagreement in the fundamentals. So how can he look away from the long and broad disagreement that has lasted for many centuries in the fundamentals, and then turn only to the disagreement in the branches or in the branch-level issues? This is truly, I mean, I am amazed by such a statement. Therefore, he had to mention, at least for the sake of fairness, that disagreement exists among Muslims, and especially among those who disagree in the fundamentals of the methodologies, to say that this disagreement is what led them to disagreement in the branch-level issues. And the disagreement in the branch-level issues is not as important as the disagreement in the fundamentals; because if they agree on the fundamentals, these disagreements in the branches, as long as they do not affect, especially the disagreement called disagreement, what is it, Shaykh? Theoretical...

The Shaykh: Is there anything other than disagreement in the branches, like what we are discussing?
Abu Malik: No, I mean the disagreement that is a disagreement of contradiction and opposition.

The Shaykh: Ah, a disagreement of diversity.
Abu Malik: Yes, so I say, especially if the disagreement is a disagreement of diversity, then what concerns us, even from the disagreement, is not the disagreement of diversity, but rather in the branches, the disagreement of contradiction; but if the fundamentals are agreed upon, in reality, even the disagreement of contradiction which is in the branches is easy and simple compared to the disagreement in the fundamentals. And I say that even now, when we are going around speaking about the Salafis, the disagreement among them in the branches and branch-level issues, and you see that there is hostility and severance among them and other things, I truly do not see that the disagreement in the branches or in the branch-level issues among the Salafis is what led to the severance. No, it is something that truly relates to the fundamentals themselves; because I... So I say that the disagreement in reality that led to the hostility and severance among our Salafi brothers is not originated from the disagreement in the branch-level issues. No.

The questioner: There is some of this and some of that.
Abu Malik: It is much deeper than this. We are now, look, I say personally that.

The Shaykh: Do not let his word go. He says there is some of this and some of that.
Abu Malik: No, no, I am not letting it go for him. I will speak with him about it.

Another questioner: When the disagreement that occurred betweenThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : Nasaib, when we were in Aleppo and he saidThe Shaykh : to him, May Allah bless you in your opinion and may Allah bless us in our opinion, and we are brothers who cooperate and... he said...
Abu Malik: This is a branch-level issue...

The Shaykh: No, no, but this is an argument against him. He... in your speech, it is an argument against him.

Another questioner : Why?

The Shaykh: He needs to go back and say that the cause of the quarrel and the hostility and the severance is not the disagreement in the branches, but rather it is a disagreement in the souls, meaning a moral disagreement. This is the example you are bringing up.

Another questioner: It is not a disagreement in the fundamental, it is a disagreement in the soul...

The Shaykh: He needs to link for you the issue of branch-level disagreements. If they produce hostile matters, that is not the cause. That is what he wants, and this is the truth.

Another questioner: This is the truth in that it is a desire in the soul, but it is not a disagreement in a rule of the religion or in a fundamental of the religion, but rather a desire in the soul that led to this. A disagreement in a branch-level issue led to boycotting and mutual hatred...

The Shaykh: This, my brother, is a disagreement with what you said just now. If the disagreement in the branches is the cause, what is it? Of hostility? Not because it is a disagreement in the branches.
Abu Malik: It is not because it is a disagreement in the branches.

The Shaykh: I say more than that. If there were a pure disagreement for the sake of Allah in the fundamentals, it would not lead to hostility... If this is the ruling in the fundamentals, if the intentions are pure... this disagreement, what about the branches?
Abu Malik: I add to this also, Shaykh, the delight of every person with his own opinion and following the desire. This is truly, what do we consider this? This is a fundamental. I mean, when I delight in my desire and follow my desire, is this not a departure from the requirement of tawhid (the oneness of Allah)?

Another questioner: This is the research here.
Abu Malik: If this is a disagreement in the fundamentals in reality, and therefore it is obligatory that education be based on the fact that disagreement or that agreement and disagreement alike... I am now, when I agreeThe Shaykh : In my opinion, let me say that it is permissible for us to differ from our Shaykh in some matters and some of his views, for example, but this does not mean that our disagreement with our Shaykh is the cause of unity, is it? Why? Allow me to tell you why? Because I know that if I were to differ from my Shaykh on one of the issues, I do not differ with him in order to show my knowledge over him; that is not what comes to mind. If that were to come to mind, it would break my back. But when we differ from our Shaykh, we differ because he commits to the truth, and we see the truth, and the truth does not multiply; it is only one. Therefore, we declare this to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and say that just as there was disagreement among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and among our righteous predecessors, we arrive at this result, and affection remains intact. Therefore, there is no desire in the soul.

The questioner : This is what he is currently doing, meaning the concept of his speech revolves around it, as long as there are things.
Abu Malik: No, no, this is very, very far-fetched.

Another questioner : His speech on this is strange, that he says... I was surprised by this speech...

The questioner : Why, meaning he says the disagreement in the previous speech, meaning if you link this to what came before it, it is possible that...
Abu Malik: O Shaykh, may Allah prolong your life and bless you. The reader is not prepared to come and sit and turn pages... Listen to me, I tell you, when I want to come and speak, the last thing that remains in my mind is that, in truth, I am like the reader.The Shaykh : In the last thing, what did he say...

The questioner : On the basis that it is a necessity to realize... knowing the limits of what Allah revealed to His Messenger, and learning the Islamic knowledge built on evidence from the Book and the Sunnah in the fields of belief, rulings, and behavior, and the constant readiness to overcome errors and correct them, and abandoning all opinions, sayings, morals, and others that contradict the reality of this noble affiliation, and this is not achieved except in an atmosphere of joy and delight in correct criticism, and leaving the style of absolute praise of sayings, deeds, persons, and groups, and the constant striving to adjust methodologies and issues in accordance with the truth that the Shari'ah of Allah requires and that a text from the Qur'an and Sunnah indicates, and placing issues and questions in their correct position that the wisdom, which is the Shari'ah and reason, requires as mentioned before.The Shaykh : He said: If "reason" were deleted, it would be better. Do not neglect the major fundamental issues because of being preoccupied with some branches, and do not exaggerate some branch issues at the expense of the essential issues, and do not neglect the branches either on the pretext that they are branches, for the fundamentals and the branches are all part of the religion. But it is necessary to place everything in its proper place and care for everything according to its due. It was said to Imam Malik: Here is a small, easy issue. He said: There is nothing easy in the religion. Indeed, Allah the Exalted says: .
Shuqara: Okay, why did he bring up the speech?
Khushan: They brought it up because the speech is connected.

The Shaykh : But there is something here, my brother. The research I just read speaks specifically about the fact that one should not neglect the branch that the believer believes in; one should not neglect it. This is the research that revolves around it. Meanwhile, the paragraph we were discussing in classifies issues into fundamental issues and branch issues. The preoccupation with scrutinizing the statement in branch issues where disagreement may exist, he does not see this. Therefore, the issue is separate from that; there is no relationship or...

The questioner : Why do you think he is telling you that he does not work on branch issues?

The Shaykh : I think this?
Abu Malik: This is his speech.

The questioner : This is not his speech, meaning his speech is directed to those who stir up fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) in that they do not accept what comes in an issue that has evidence for it, even if it is a detail, as long as it is a branch and has evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, it is obligatory for the other Muslim to accept it...
Abu Malik: ... O Abu 'Abdullah, now.The Shaykh : Nasir al-Din al-Albani has writings andThe Shaykh : Nasir al-Din al-Albani, as far as we know, and this is what we declare to Allah and hope to be so, if Allah wills, and he is so, thatThe Shaykh : Nasir does not bring up an issue in any of his books except that it is supported by Islamic evidence, is it not?

The questioner: Yes.
Abu Malik: Okay, this enmity, of course.The Shaykh : Nasir agrees with our brothers in all parts of the earth that, by Allah, we are not different in 'aqidah (creed). And although, of course, there is commitment to the 'aqidah and its implications, and there is commitment to the 'aqidah and not to the implications, this is clear, and this difference is far and wide. But at least the original is agreed upon, regardless of the commitment to this implication and the commitment to that implication. Why do you see many of the Shaykhs who have been known for decades, and the Shaykhs who are from the students of knowledge who have been known recently, all throw him from one bow in many of the issues that... and these are the branch issues.

The questioner : From desire, from desire.
Abu Malik: Then it means, may Allah bless you.

The questioner : This is not from them.
Abu Malik: From whom?

The questioner : This writer is not on this methodology, the methodology of these people.
Abu Malik: No, it leads to this, I... the speech.

The questioner : Basically, in his line of progression, he agrees with us in the fundamentals and the branches.

The Shaykh : My brother, let's stop here and read the phrase again. We do not doubt that he is with us in the fundamentals and the branches, but we fear that he may be influenced by some partisan directions, and this speech he is saying now stems from that direction. Therefore, be patient, read the phrase again, and let me understand it, paragraph by paragraph.

The questioner : Yes, he says, and despite all this; the Muslims, I mean those of them who care about Islam, are still immersed in fierce disagreements over issues that are not from the fundamentals of the religion and its great rules.

The Shaykh : Stop, is this a reality or not a reality?

The questioner : It is a reality.

The Shaykh : Okay, does he deny it or acknowledge it?

The questioner : No, he denies it.

The Shaykh : Okay, does he have the right to this denial?

The questioner : He denies it against those who are not on the truth; he does not deny it against us.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, why did you divide the group into two? He is talking about the Muslims who work in knowledge, read the phrase again.

The questioner : I mean those of them who care about Islam are immersed in fierce disagreements over issues that are not from the fundamentals of the religion and its great rules.

The Shaykh : He is talking about everyone; he is not talking about the successful and the defeated. He is talking about everyone; they are still immersed in researching these matters, so he denies that.

The questioner : Meaning here, we can say it needs something or a restriction of the expressions, but for example, I want to give an example.The Shaykh : When he addressed the issue of the Tarawih prayer, he said, "So we restrict the Sunnah in the Tarawih prayer to eight rak'ahs or eleven rak'ahs," meaning, and yet we do not declare as an innovator the one who sees the permissibility of increasing and sees that the night prayer is absolutely voluntary and that he does so with full conviction, not blind imitation. So we do not say he is an innovator, that he is an innovator.

The Shaykh : This does not benefit you anything in what we are discussing.

The questioner : My intention is that the original point is that you made this an excuse for these people.

The Shaykh : It has no relation to the topic. Now, am I with al-Sabuni, for example, not different in the topic?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, I said this speech, what did he say?

The questioner : He says the opposite.

The Shaykh : He said "mutasallifin" (those who follow the Salaf), al-Sabuni, this is 'Ali al-Sabuni.Al-Halabi : He said "mutasallifin," so he denies our preoccupation with these issues. He does not distinguish between the one who is on the right and the one who is in the good style from the one who is, in his view, wrong in thought and style. He does not speak with this detail; he includes everyone in his speech.

The questioner : I have been revolving around this for a long time, that these are the ones who claimed and claim that our preoccupation with clarifying the Sunnah stirs up disagreement. And the truth, we say, we respond to them that their enmity toward the Sunnah is the cause of the disagreement, not our preoccupation and clarification of the Sunnahs to people and clarification of the bid'ah (religious innovation) to people is the cause of the disagreement, and that we are the ones who stir up the disagreement. Rather, the cause of the disagreement is because they fight the Sunnah or leave it or do not want us to alert people to the Sunnahs.
Abu Malik: This is established, Shaykh. This statement of theirs requires you to present evidence for it. Do you understand? Because they see themselves as being on the truth and you as being on falsehood. If we assume that this is what you are saying, it is truly the cause of the disagreement.
Khushan: Yes, this is the cause of the disagreement.
Shuqara: And so it is. But I say that these people see things differently from how you see them. Therefore, if you came to judge this issue in which there was disagreement between you and one of them, you would not be the one to prevail or win. Why? Because he sees himself as being right and will not budge. He knows, or perhaps he preceded you before you said this, in attempting to refute all the evidence that supports what you say, and he demolishes your opinion with the evidence he considers correct. Therefore, I say that it is absolutely impossible to reach a result with people of desires. I might be able to reach a result with a disbeliever in one of the scientific issues, but I cannot reach it with a person of desire. A person of desire does not discuss matters of creed with you as he discusses matters of...

The questioner : As we said, for example, once in one of the houses, without mentioning names, and there were a number of scholars, some from Egypt, some from the Levant, or others. So a biography came up.The Shaykh : And some of them said, "He opposes the majority." A word... So I said to him, "Excuse me, what did I say to them? I mean, the word is... That, by Allah, he opposes the majority. What does he mean by this word?" I said to him, "And which of you does not oppose the majority? You, Shaykh, oppose the majority in issues, and so-and-so and so-and-so."
In fact, the four Imams, not one of them did not oppose the majority. Abu Hanifa opposed the majority, Malik opposed the majority, Ahmad opposed the majority, al-Shafi'i opposed the majority. There is no Imam who did not oppose the majority. So it is not a disparagement to say, "He opposes the majority." It is not a crime to oppose the majority, and it is not a disparagement.
Abu Malik: If I were in your place, I would have said to them, "By Allah, you have said something good."

The questioner : Did he understand after that that this is not an attack? To come and say, "By Allah, he opposes the majority." What does that mean? He wants to belittle. So if you want to belittle...The Shaykh : Al-Albani because he opposes the majority, then you belittle al-Shafi'i, you belittle Ahmad, you belittle Abu Hanifa. Because there is no Imam of the Muslims who did not oppose the majority in issues. So the issue is not looked at as "he opposed the majority" or "he did not oppose the majority." You look at the evidence. Does he have evidence for that, and is his discussion a valid one?

The Shaykh : You have strayed from the point. The phrase "strayed from the point" (al-nujja). The phrase is in one place, and our discussion now is in another place.

The questioner : Now, here, these people, when you, for example, in these issues, and they see them as secondary issues, why do they distance themselves and keep themselves apart?

The Shaykh : My brother, this is another issue. What do we need in this?

The questioner : It does not fall under that.

The Shaykh : My brother, is his statement correct or incorrect?

The questioner : Now, his statement is that the Islamic groups that, for example, bear you enmity, bear enmity to the Salafi call. Do you see the Salafi call as...?

Another questioner : The problem with our brother Salman, although I hope he did not write this, but how about the immersion in details and talking about straightening the rows? I mean, some matters confirm the indication you mentioned.The Shaykh : And we hoped he had not written this. In the book "Immersion in Details," did you read it, our Shaykh? I did not read it; I heard from some people.

The Shaykh : Perhaps he read some of it to us.

The questioner : Yes, he spoke about straightening the rows, speaking in a way that...

The Shaykh : I think he mentioned standing up...
Abu Malik: He mentioned the husk and the kernel.
Abu Layla : ... Standing up is among the noble of character.

The Shaykh : He brought up the issue and turned it around and said,The Shaykh : Ibn Baz sees that it is permissible. He finished the topic, and did not dwell on what was a person who was dearer to them than the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and they did not stand up for him because they knew his dislike of that.

The questioner : In any case, he saw it as a secondary issue that we do not differ over, and the fact that this is said...
Abu Malik: This is not a secondary issue, Shaykh Ali. It is an issue in the fundamentals. Do you know why?

The questioner : ...

The questioner : Allow me to tell you. I say it is an issue in the fundamentals because it leads to attacking the persons of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and it also leads to...

The questioner : ... ؟
Abu Malik: No, no, this is correct... May Allah bless you. It leads to attacking them in their conduct, in their behavior, in their understanding, and in their etiquette with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : Their lack of respect for their Prophet.
This is an issue in the fundamentals, not an issue in the branches. Now, we specify this particular issue. We must look at it with a correct scientific view. It is a matter of creed. Our Lord said: . So where is the respect here from those who do, or who do not understand what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said? And they are the ones who lived in his vicinity and knew of his behavior.

The questioner : Every detailed issue can be sequenced like this. Every difference in understanding the text, we are talking about an issue where independent legal reasoning led to disagreement. For example, some scholars saw the permissibility of this issue, and others saw its impermissibility. And this is in many things where the Imams... permitted and prohibited.
I almost say, I swear by the Great Allah, that the disagreement in this issue was not carried out except to follow custom and fall under the influence of habits.

The questioner : Desire, yes. I said to some of them, I said, "My brother, remember..."The Shaykh : Hussein, who was present in this session or not, in our house? When Mahmoud al-Dik was there and Abd al-Mun'im was with him, he came... from the Emirates, and the issue of standing up came up, andThe Shaykh : Mahmoud did not stand up, and we talked about... and I said to them, "One of you was collecting the treatise of Imam al-Nawawi, 'The Permission to Stand Up.' I said to them, 'My brother, even this treatise of Imam al-Nawawi is an argument against you, not for you. Because Imam al-Nawawi saw a dispensation, a permission. You say that not standing up is bad etiquette. Imam al-Nawawi said: Standing up is permissible. He did not say that those who do not stand up are of bad etiquette and little etiquette. He saw that standing up is permissible and not standing up is permissible. If we assume this, then both sides are equal. If we say this, well, you say that not standing up is bad etiquette and you disparage those who did not stand up with bad etiquette. So the treatise is an argument against you, not an argument for you."
Abu Malik: And therefore, this is a matter of creed.

The questioner : I agree with you, but the problem that happened with us, I see that we should return the arrows to them. We should say that those who stir up disagreements are they. We have not clarified a correct Sunnah and forbidden an innovation and explained that to the Ummah. This is part of the duty of advice and part of the duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil. So it is not permissible for us to be pointed to as the ones who stir up disagreement, and our preoccupation and immersion in detailed issues of disagreement. Rather, the one who stirs up disagreement, if it needs correction, is the one who stands in these issues. If he does not agree with us in our independent legal reasoning, he should not disparage us. He is the one who stirs up disagreement.

The Shaykh : Shaykh Ali, may Allah guide you and me, and your enthusiasm. You are responding to the author while you are saying there is no problem.

The questioner : And if this phrase needs something, it must be qualified by this.

The Shaykh : My brother, do not cast doubt. If it is, say "if it is," at least. How "if it is"? All this talk is a response to him.

The questioner : Well, if it is.

The Shaykh : Haha, as you wish.

The questioner : I understand this in light of my understanding of the issue. It is possible that this phrase has a shortcoming, and it is clarified and discussed.

The Shaykh : And it is possible that there is no shortcoming. We are back to casting doubt.

The questioner : No, I mean, we explain to Salman in a note that among the Sunnah for people and he refuted an innovation for people, and even if it is a detail, he is not the one who stirs up disagreement and is immersed in disagreements. Rather, the one who is immersed in disagreements is the one who boycotts him and attacks him because he clarified this...

The Shaykh : This is what is called, but here we want to know what to call it. Here we say to him: Your criticism of these scholars who research secondary issues is a mistake; because research should continue in everything related to Islam, whether it is the whole or a part, principles or branches, and so on, with good intentions.

The questioner : He does not criticize engaging with detailed issues, as he stated previously; he criticizes disagreement.

The Shaykh : My brother, what is he saying? May Allah guide you?

The questioner : He is saying that they are still immersed in fierce disagreements, drowning in fierce disagreements. He did not say that. He criticizes disagreement. So, disagreement comes from the one who opposes, not from the one who clarifies. Therefore, the one who clarifies the truth is not said to have stirred up [disagreement].
Abu Malik: May Allah forgive you and me.

The Shaykh : O Allah, amen.
Abu Malik: I mean, right now, may Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : And we are with you.
Abu Malik: I mean, right now, when you say this, Shaykh Ali, it is as if you have not read this phrase. Allow me to tell you.

The questioner : ... .
Abu Malik: No, truly, because when I read this phrase, one of two things comes to mind: eitherThe Shaykh : Salman forgot what he wrote, he forgot and wrote this, and that is the best assumption in my view. Or he wrote what he wrote and did well, then he brought another phrase and did not do well.

The questioner : You have done well.
Abu Malik: If that is the case. Allow me to tell you, we are not discussing Salman regarding the best assumption; we are discussing him regarding the second point. So, may Allah bless you, Salman. We are discussing him regarding the second point. So, may Allah bless you. Salman is writing for him now, meaning there is no need to prolong this issue, but rather it is said to him: You have erred in it; because you do not criticize those who clarify the Sunnah for people, but rather you criticize everyone who engages in clarification and opposition, because this is opposing the one who clarifies the Sunnah, is it not? I am just asking you.

The questioner: No.
Abu Malik: O Abu Abdillah, I mean, I am adopting a position correctly based on evidence, and you are adopting the opposite not based on evidence. Am I opposing you or not opposing you?

The questioner : My master, you are not opposing me; I am opposing you. You are not opposing me.

The Shaykh : But in terms of reality, Shaykh Ali.

The questioner : My professor, the one who stirs up disagreement is me when I oppose you in an issue where you are clarifying the evidence. I oppose you, I stir up disagreement, and I become your enemy.
Abu Malik: Abu Abdillah, may Allah bless you. This is a theoretical representation, but I tell you now: you are clarifying an issue and the face of the truth is with you, correct?

The questioner: Yes.
Abu Malik: Fine, and the face of the truth is not with me. Am I allowed to oppose you with my ijtihad, but a third person opposes out of desire, is that not so?

The questioner: Yes.
Abu Malik: Fine, we are all equal in one issue, which is that we are different, is that not so? Are we not different?

The Shaykh : It is not so, in my opinion.
Abu Malik: No, he is now agreeing with me that we are different.

The questioner : I mean, there is disagreement and there is no disagreement. You and I, there is no disagreement between us in terms of the result; because you did not judge out of desire, and there is no enmity between you and me as you mentionedThe Shaykh : at the beginning.
Abu Malik: I saw... and I am with my ijtihad, and you are with the evidence.

The questioner : You and I, as we just discussed, we oppose our Shaykh in issues, but despite our disagreement with our Shaykh, we still acknowledge his virtue and that he is our Shaykh and our role model and our example.
Abu Malik: ... we are talking ...

The questioner : Never mind, never mind. My intention here is that we disagreed, and this disagreement did not create a difference between us. We disagreed in ijtihad, correct, but there is no difference between us despite our disagreement in the ruling, but ...
Abu Malik: The point, Shaykh, is that this phrase is not the intended one. O Abu Abdillah, I am telling you, we are now: you are with the evidence, and I am with ijtihad without evidence or with general evidence, and this, God forbid, is out of desire. Are we actually different or not?

The questioner: Yes.
Abu Malik: It is this, so now I am different fromThe Shaykh : Nasser, for example. I want to say I am different fromThe Shaykh : Nasser, but my difference withThe Shaykh : Nasser is due to my estimation, love, and reverence for his knowledge, and awareness of his status, and so on. I say he is more knowledgeable than me, is that not so?

The questioner: Yes.
Abu Malik: Fine, do you know, professor, that if a scholar enters into the midst of this disagreement with the mujtahid by general evidence or by bare opinion or by bare analogy, he becomes equal to the one who acts out of desire. They are the same, and they draw from the same well or take arrows from the same quiver. Therefore, may Allah bless you, we are not talking about those who differ in an issue, and as the poet says, or what do they say, "Our disagreement in opinion does not spoil the relationship." This is not what we are talking about. This is what we are talking about: those whom Salman targeted with this phrase. And I think our Shaykh may agree with us. We may not go beyond this scope that ...

The Shaykh : Of course, we are all like this.

The questioner : I want to clarify to Salman here that we say to him: Who do you mean ...
Abu Malik: There is no need. You tell him ...

The Shaykh : Allow me a moment. We are representing Salman. Suppose you are Salman. What do you mean by this phrase?

The questioner : I mean the one who criticizes the one who clarifies.

The Shaykh : Consider yourself to be Salman. What do you mean? ... The best assumption, what does it mean?

The questioner : I mean that it is not permissible to criticize and it is not permissible to disagree with the one who clarifies the Sunnahs and innovations, even if ...

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. Where did you go east? Where is this phrase?

The questioner : Now, in issues, he says they are not from the principles of religion.

The Shaykh : Look, Professor Ali, please be careful. I know the heat gets to you. Put the phrase in front of you and interpret it according to the best assumption as a representative for Salman.

The questioner : Connect it with the previous speech, the one before it.

The Shaykh : Never mind, connect it. Say now, interpret this phrase with the mentioned connection. What does it mean?

The questioner : It is not possible.

The Shaykh : Impossible, this. But let us see what comes out of him.

The questioner : Immersed in fierce disagreements over issues that are not from the principles of religion and its great rules, and are not from the places of consensus that must not be violated; rather, they are not from the practical issues of life that affect the present or the future.

Another questioner : ... Salman would be infallible.

The questioner : No, he is not infallible, neither Salman nor anyone else.

The Shaykh : ... Did you not admit that this is a criticism? This phrase, is the one who said it not criticizing this state of affairs?

The questioner : He criticizes the existing disagreement, meaning he does not want there to be an existing disagreement, even if there are issues. He wants these issues that involve secondary ijtihad to be within brotherhood, love, and affection, not with enmity and hatred.

The Shaykh : And show us this meaning so we can see?

The questioner : I am connecting it with the previous.

The Shaykh : My brother, wait, wait.

The questioner : No, wait. If it is connected to the previous, understand it. But without connecting to the previous, no ...

The Shaykh : What is he saying here?

The questioner : Here he is saying the close cooperation between the categories of this sect.

The Shaykh : Here, my brother, I am telling you.

The questioner : And they do not possess any means of influence and attraction worth mentioning. And despite this and that, meaning that the disbelievers with their aggression, etc., the Muslims, instead of being cooperative, the Muslims, I mean those of them who care for Islam, are still immersed in fierce disagreements.

The Shaykh : Who are these who care for Islam? You and me, Zayd, Bakr, the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, and so on. Fine, is he criticizing them?

The questioner : He criticizes their disagreement.

The Shaykh : No, he criticizes their care.

The questioner : No, he criticizes their disagreement.

The Shaykh : Look at the phrase.

The questioner : He says: The Muslims, I mean those of them who care for Islam, are still immersed in fierce disagreements over issues that are not from the principles of religion and its great rules, and are not from the places of consensus.

The Shaykh : But that is enough.

The questioner : So he criticizes the disagreement, not the engagement with details.
Abu Malik: The truth is, may Allah reward you with good, our Shaykh drew our attention to an issue. Know first, O our Shaykh, allow me to say: if he had stopped at the Muslims only, the matter would have ended.

The Shaykh: No.
And on this matter.

The Shaykh : ... .
Abu Malik: But the truth is, the implication of his speech, in which he criticizes disagreement from those who care, is as if he is also complaining about those who care for Islam.

The questioner : He complains about the disagreement, not about the care for clarifying the Sunnahs or for clarifying the obligations.

The Shaykh : No, no, leave the obligatory branches alone.

The questioner : The branches, to clarify the branches.

The Shaykh : Are they obligatory?

The questioner : I mean, I am saying here that it is obligatory...
Abu Malik: ...obligations, O our Shaykh, to be frank.

The questioner : Now, when I accept Salman's words, I accept them with conditions. If this statement is meant to come upon... another, that among the branches of Islam, according to his ijtihad, and he explained that with evidence, without meaning to disparage others with anything, then this is not contrary. But the one who contradicts and stirs up disagreement and discord...
Abu Malik: May Allah forgive you, you attributed to his words more than they can bear, and by Allah, his words do not mean any of what you are saying.

The questioner : I am saying we understand it this way, if... we want to clarify.
Abu Malik: If you love Salman, and we, by Allah, love Salman, we do not hate Salman; on the contrary, we consider him one of the people who took up the call in this time with sincerity and devotion, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
Abu Malik: But we deny this dangerous statement from him, because it occurred from him as a slip, and it is possible, as I told you, that he intended it deliberately. But now, this expression, this interpretation that you are interpreting, has no connection to Salman's words. This is far, Professor. This is what your love for Salman leads you to.

The questioner : I mean, I want to direct Salman's words.
Abu Malik: It is not directed in this way.

The questioner : I want...
Abu Malik: You tell Salman to delete this expression from your book; that is the best thing you can say to him.

The questioner : I am saying, for example, a modification must be made to the expression.

Another questioner : Correction...

The questioner : I mean, the understanding of the issue must be that we, the Salafis, we position ourselves such that when they say in their differences that we are stirring up differences, they claim that, we turn the matter back on them, that the one who clarifies the Sunnah does not stir up differences; the one who stirs up differences is the one who demands...
Abu Malik: Good, good, so let him delete this expression, and let that be your understanding of Salman. Say this is what I want instead of this expression, just...

The questioner : The one who clarifies the Sunnah, even if it is a minor point, and denies the bid'ah, even if it is an additional bid'ah, is not said to be immersed in differences; he clarifies the religion and the true methodology. But the one who is immersed in differences is the one who opposes the one who does that; this is the one who is immersed in differences. I mean, now, the Muslim Brotherhood, when they oppose us by saying that we clarify, why? They agree with us in many fundamentals, in many rules, in many matters...
Shuqara: They are not in agreement except in the word of testimony, only in its wording, only in its wording; as for its meaning, no, by Allah.

The questioner : So my intention is that we launch... I mean, we return their weapon to their chests. They are always humming around...

The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you, are you still speaking outside the topic? This has no relation to this expression, and it has no relation to this expression specifically, especially since you are repeating it.

The questioner : I connected it to the previous.
Abu Malik: You are repeating it with different wording.The Shaykh : Ali is a man, may Allah will it, who has wealth.

The questioner : In any case, there is no objection to writing a note for him regarding this.

The Shaykh : My brother, he is immersed, it covers all Islamic preachers, all of them. In your speech, you exclude; it is enough for you to know that this is a mistake.

The questioner : Okay, now, Professor.

The Shaykh : No, before that, is my statement correct or not? His statement covers all Islamic preachers who are immersed in these details, and you exclude, is my statement correct or not?

The questioner : It is possible that he includes everyone, and another possibility is that he does not.

The Shaykh : ... .

The questioner : Now, for example, he did not write to you in his letters that he sees you as immersed in this difference... rather, he wrote to you...

The Shaykh : ...I want to show you this letter that made me call him the Shaykh al-Islam and the magnanimous one.The Shaykh : And he directed this statement to him.