He spoke about the ideology of the Tahrir Party.

The Shaykh : And now, the series of research and thinking reminds me of a joke that happened in Damascus with one of those who adopted the Tahrir Party. The Tahrir Party has fundamentalist ideas; I believe they did not establish them on precise scientific study, but rather to facilitate their partisanship. From them, the principle in every command in the Book and the Sunnah is that it does not indicate obligation, and rather, every command must be studied objectively to see if it indicates obligation, or recommendation, or what is encouraged, or permissibility... This is a chapter of doubt regarding the commands of the Shari'ah, which is very, very serious. It is known that the majority of scholars of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) say that the principle in a command is obligation unless there is an indicator to the contrary, and this is what we testify to Allah with. The important thing is that Allah the Exalted willed that one of our brothers became an employee in an office that sells books, and he had a boss or commander who adopted the Tahrir Party's view regarding commands. A discussion took place between them. I believe, and without doubt, that this commander was more knowledgeable than the one commanded; that is, that partisan was more knowledgeable than our friend. Our friend was a small student of knowledge, so they debated this issue, and he was unable to maneuver or contend with him. He came to complain about this arrogance of his boss or commander over him in this issue. And I, if I had delivered a lecture to him, he would not have been able to pick it up like a magnet picks up iron; he might have memorized something and forgotten something. So Allah inspired me with a practical solution to the problem. I said to him, his name is Sa'id, our friend. I said, "O Sa'id, your work is under his hand, so if he asks you for something, it is obligatory upon you by virtue of the job to fulfill it whenever he asks you for something." In the Syrian expression, I told him, "Tunash." What does "Tunash" mean? It means to ignore that you heard him. "Tunash." Of course, the commander will get angry at you. He will call you the first time, you won't respond; the second time, you won't respond, and so on. I said, "At that point, your friend will be fed up and get angry and say to you, 'My brother, I am commanding you to bring me such-and-such a book or such-and-such a thing, why do you not respond to my request?'" Tell him with complete calmness, "The command does not indicate obligation, so you must have an indicator with this command for me to understand that your command is for obligation." And so it actually happened. The man's opponent would ask him for something, and he would "Tunash." "My brother, we did not respond. My brother, you did not understand. Your command is merely a command; that your command is for obligation is because your school, as we debated that day, is that the command does not indicate obligation. So I am not negligent with you; it is a command that indicates recommendation, and by Allah, I am exempt from recommendation; I do not want it," and so on. So the point, may Allah reward you, is here: a command from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to his noble Companions, which they heard directly. The narrator is more aware of what he narrates, which is what I am going around and around about. Yes, by Allah, there is no argument with him. The argument is the argument between us and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so he is the one who applied this command. Then even he and his like do not come to say what he said. What do you say about what Ibn 'Umar did in following the athar (reports) and so on? They blocked the path for him in advance. We brought him Abu Hurayrah, and he returned to argue with some of the actions of Ibn 'Umar that no one agrees with. Glory be to Allah! Are these equal? These are matters in which Ibn 'Umar was unique. As for taking from the beard, he was not unique in that. We say that all the Salaf were upon this, and there is no hadith or athar that Zayd from the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or even those after them, were trimming their beards, even if they let them drag on the ground. There is no existence of this, and the opposite is what exists. So why, when you say we must understand the people this rule? My brother, the rule I am stating is established on these rules mentioned by the jurists before us, and we understood them through them, but all that is the case is that I have cast what I understood from these established rules into a new mold to clarify a very important issue, which is arguing with the general text that has not been acted upon. And I am amazed, with the clarity of the examples, especially the ones we mentioned, why raising the hands in prayer is not permissible. My brother, this raising was not transmitted from the Messenger, but the hadith of the Messenger is clear in its general indication that Allah does not want the hands to be empty. No, we are Salafis, we are followers of the Salaf. Why here followers of the Salaf and there followers of understanding? My brother, if the matter remained with your understanding and Ibn 'Umar's understanding, we would say it is excused, but you contradicted Ibn 'Umar, you contradicted Abu Hurayrah, you contradicted the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad. What do you say about that? You say, "My understanding and the understanding of the Shaykhs." This is not the way of the Salaf. You have Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha'i, who was one of the students of Ibn Mas'ud and had met some of the Companions, who said: "Those before us used to take from their beards." All these texts were neglected simply because some scholars were found saying, "This does not indicate that, O Shaykh, may Allah guide you."

The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah preserve you, these texts, my friend is pointing to them.

The Shaykh : Yes, you have done well, there is no harm. This book is authored by Ibn Abi Shaybah. The chapter of what they said about taking from the beard. From Ibn Tawus, from Sammak ibn Yazid, he said: "Ali used to take from his beard what was near his face." From Abu Zur'ah, another hadith or another athar, from Abu Zur'ah, he said: "Abu Hurayrah used to grasp his beard and then take what was in excess of the grasp." Sammak, excuse me, Ata' ibn Abi Rabah said: "They loved to let the beard grow, except in Hajj or 'Umrah, and Ibrahim used to take from the side of his beard." From Ibn Tawus, from his father, that he used to take from his beard and did not make it obligatory. A'ith ibn Habib, through his chain, from al-Hasan, he said: "They used to permit taking from what was in excess of the grasp of the beard." Then al-Qasim, when he shaved his head, would take from his beard and mustache, and so on. All of these are athar regarding taking. We say, I understand it this way, and those who came after us did not understand it. This is the problem of the Khalaf (later generations), not the problem of the Salaf. This is the problem of the Khalaf. We understand it this way. Throw your understanding over there to that planet and submit your understanding to your Salaf. Understanding is more understanding, and without doubt, from those like us, the later ones. I was once like you, but Allah guided us through these Salafi athar.