A discussion regarding the distinction between the saved sect and the strangers.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : My brother, we explained that being dismissive can be a matter of the heart, and we said that the tongue of reality is more eloquent than the tongue of speech. So you can consider him wrong in this specific detail, but you do not consider him wrong in the general principle.

The questioner : No, I do not consider him wrong in the general principle. I am saying, O Shaykh, this detail and this statement—this is the belief of the Khawarij.

The Shaykh : It is not a belief; this is a ruling.

The questioner : Shaykh, what I understood from his words is that he does not rule on a man in his own mind. He categorizes people into groups and says that the ruling for this group is such and such; they are eternal in the Fire. I see that this is an error. He does not rule that Salman adopts the belief of the Khawarij. How can we, as you mentioned, Shaykh, hear from him and others that they distance themselves from the Khawarij and that they have positions, and so on? This is without doubt. I only wanted to hear from you one of the points where we fear that in the future Satan may lead them astray, especially since they differ from us in the methodology of da'wah.

The Shaykh : That was not the request, may Allah reward you. This is...

The questioner : This is what I understood, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : That was not the request, may Allah reward you. You have the right to speak whatever you wish, but you do not have the right to answer what was not asked. You have the right to speak whatever you wish, but our question was clear and was repeated to your ears: give us the greatest difference in belief. So you came to us with a branch.

The questioner : I told you, the greatest point, O Shaykh, in their words that indicates they differ in belief. I told you at the beginning of the research that we do not think they differ from us in belief. I said this at the start of the research. If we go back to a part of the tape, you will hear this, O Shaykh, if Allah wills, at another time. I said this at the start of the research. But I believe that regarding belief, since the methodology is the path, the clear road, the way, the Sunnah, and belief is part of this methodology, we fear that with the passage of time they may fall into error without realizing it. We tried to advise them, we tried to meet with them, and we tried through more than one way. Do not think that we did not try; we tried. And now, before you, we say: judge between us and them. If you come, gather them and gather us. We sit and say: we criticize you for such and such in the methodology.

The Shaykh : My brother, since you have not met with them, your understanding with us will be much closer.

The questioner : I met with Safer.

The Shaykh : With Safer only, but I have not met with the rest. Here is the problem, because it is not permissible to rule on a group based on the opinion of one person, even if that opinion is binding on him. But I say, regarding him, gather us with them. We are now gathered. Clarify, my brother, what are the things that necessitate separation between you and the group with you, and between them and the group with them? What are these things? You must never hold onto this issue, as long as you finally admit that this issue does not make them disbelievers according to the Khariji school. Meanwhile, my request from you was to say that they differ from us in belief. And your saying this is what compelled me to say: shorten the matter. This is the greatest difference in belief, so you came to us with no difference. You came to us with a ruling that this group are the open sinners, the wicked ones who are heedless of the Shari'ah and commit major sins and wrongs openly. This is a ruling that they have apostatized from their religion. This is a ruling on a type of people. But we are asking about belief. So if you say they do not differ from us in belief, then why is this discord? For what?

The questioner : In the methodology, O Shaykh, in the methodology of da'wah.

The Shaykh : So if we go back now to the style, and not to belief.

The questioner : And not to belief.

The Shaykh : Okay, bring it so we can see what is the methodology and style that we consider, or can consider, them to be contrary to the Book and the Sunnah?

The questioner : For example, perhaps you have looked at Salman's words regarding the description of the strangers, and that he wrote this book and distinguished in it between the victorious party and the saved sect. Then he doubted the attribution that the people of hadith are the victorious party. He doubted its attribution to Imam Ahmad and said, if it is authentic from Ahmad, he considers it. So Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) does not consider that the victorious party is only for them, but rather that the people of hadith are part of the sect, and they are not the saved sect. Then, of course, he mentioned and included the schools of jurisprudence and the followers of the four schools in the saved sect. Then he came to the victorious party, which he believes, as he has stated in many places in his book, is something more noble, better, and more exalted than the saved sect, from which he excluded the people of hadith and made them part of the saved sect. He came to the victorious party and described it with attributes, claiming that these attributes are what it deserves, and that these are not found in others. Then he divided the victorious party into categories and made the Islamic gatherings and Islamic groups part of the victorious party.
Is this not a contradiction of the Book and the Sunnah, as the Salaf of the Ummah (may Allah have mercy on them) understood it?

The Shaykh : You say he made all the groups part of the victorious party?

The questioner : Yes, and I will read to you the passage if you allow.

The Shaykh : Yes, just this point. But I understand from the word that the Muslim Brotherhood is among them, and the Tahrir Party as well.

The questioner : He mentioned the groups but did not name them, but I understand.

The Shaykh : I am asking you about your understanding.

The questioner : I understand this. Listen, our Shaykh said: he mentioned words about the people of hadith from page 114, and then he said.

The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah, O Khalid. I told you, may Allah reward you, put marks on the places so you do not waste time like this.

The questioner : I was thinking I would find time to prepare. I know the places, but...

The Shaykh : Okay, let me search. I searched with you. Is everyone who is from the saved sect from the victorious party?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, is everyone who is not from the saved sect from the strangers?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : What does he say?

The questioner : He distinguishes.

The Shaykh : He distinguishes. Okay, what is your argument for not distinguishing, and what is his argument for distinguishing? This is first. Second, you will see that the issue is completely illusory. Creating a sect and a dispute between you and the group, these mean, if he told you, for example, that placing the hands after rising from bowing is a recommended practice, and you or I say this is an innovation, this creates a difference between us and him.

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : What is the difference between this and that?

The questioner : I think the difference, O Shaykh, I imagine, is when he distinguishes between the victorious party and the saved sect and excludes the people of hadith from the party.

The Shaykh : You have strayed from my question. Give me what is in your mind.

The questioner : No, I am paying attention to your question.

The Shaykh : No, no, you are not paying attention. I am asking: the topic reached you regarding the saved sect. Is everyone who is from the saved sect from the strangers?

The questioner : I said yes.

The Shaykh : Stay on this point. Do not mix in the victorious party for me; that has a separate research. So I noticed that you are distracted from me, so do not be distracted from me now. My last question was: Is everyone who is from the saved sect from the strangers? That is only our topic. So you answered yes. Then I said: first, what is your evidence for not distinguishing? Meaning that there is a universal rule: everyone who is from the saved sect is a stranger, and everyone who is a stranger or from the strangers is from the saved sect. That is what you say.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : You say he distinguishes. What is your evidence now for not distinguishing, and what is his evidence for distinguishing? So the issue becomes a jurisprudential one. If the evidence is sound for you that there is no difference, the truth is with you. And if the evidence is sound for him that there is a difference, the truth is with him. Then in the end, either you joined him, or he joined you, or each of you remained with his opinion. Does this necessitate a sect?

The questioner : No, it does not necessitate a sect.

The Shaykh : Then why the sect?

The questioner : Because the sect, O Shaykh, may Allah reward you, is what he aims for in what he does. He aims, O Shaykh, to exclude the Salafis from the victorious party. May Allah forgive us and him.

The Shaykh : Strange.

The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh, and the evidence is that I will read to you his words, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Do you feel what? Now you have returned to the victorious party. I am not researching the victorious party with you. May Allah guide you.

The questioner : I said that they are one thing, O Shaykh. I think that the strangers, the saved sect, and the victorious party are one thing.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. Limit the discussion to a specific point. What do I want? Do you think I was right or wrong? What do I want? Do you think that the discussion is about the saved sect and the strangers? I have repeated this issue to your ears three times. Leave me the victorious group and leave me what one person aims for. Someone comes and says, for example, that abandoning prayer is a matter of belief. What is his aim? By Allah, he wants to destroy and declare Muslims disbelievers, taking them out of the circle of Islam, and so on. This is his belief. So I meet with him, I do not argue with him, and I part ways with him, and so on. What is his aim? These days will reveal what he aims for. I want to see this belief: is abandoning prayer an operational abandonment or a belief-based one? Is it disbelief that takes one out of the religion or not? This is a point of disagreement. But look at his aim; we do not know what his aim is. As it is said: "The days will reveal to you what you were ignorant of," and so on. So now, may Allah reward you, I am saying: you say the saved sect are the strangers, and he says no, there is a difference. I am assuming now that in the end, I met him and you tried to reconcile, but you did not reconcile. Does this necessitate a sect? The answer is no. So why is it a sect? This is something I said. The second thing: I am now going to say that when you do not differentiate, you want to present your evidence, right? Bring it so we can see what the evidence is that you understand there is no difference.

The questioner : Between the strangers and the saved sect.

The Shaykh : No, I beg you, do you notice? Is everyone who is from the saved sect from the strangers?

The questioner : I said yes.

The Shaykh : I understand, my brother. You are saying yes, but you are repeating the phrase in wording that is not mine.

The questioner : I did not understand the question. I said yes. What is required after the "yes"?

The Shaykh : It is clarified that everyone who is from the saved sect is from the strangers.

The questioner : When the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned it, he said: and explained this one as being and in another narration, he explained this one as then in the hadith of strangeness, he said: So we ask: is it possible for the description of the strangers, the strangeness that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) named, to exist? This Islam began as a stranger, meaning it began with what he and his companions were upon. It refers back to the first hadith: what he and his companions were upon. When the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified that this strangeness would return, he clarified that it is the same strangeness that was with him when he and his companions were on that single, straight path. So I do not think that anyone who wants to restore the second strangeness again must not be from the saved sect.

The Shaykh : He says he is not from the saved sect.

The questioner : He differentiates, yes.

The Shaykh : The word covered it, my brother. I am asking you now: does he say that the one who wants to be from the strangers will not be upon what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon?

The questioner : He does not say this. He says strangeness is a more specific description than the group and the sect.

The Shaykh : My brother, leave me and the group. May Allah guide you. Leave me and the group. Now, what are we in? We are naming two sects or two descriptions: the saved sect and the strange sect, the strangers.

The questioner : He makes the strangers a part of the saved sect.

The Shaykh : Do not repeat this to me. Okay, now this is your opinion. If someone disagrees with you, what do you have against me if he disagrees with your opinion?

The questioner : If I think he is wrong, I respond to him.

The Shaykh : I have no response to him. I have no response, my brother. This is not the topic. May Allah reward you. There is no one among us but a responder and one responded to, as Malik said. But why is this enmity, my brother, just because you see a difference from his opinion?

The questioner : The enmity, may Allah reward you, may He forgive us and you, was not just for this issue. The enmity was accompanied by this, by slandering and accusations against scholars and belittling them. This is the enmity.

The Shaykh : He said, "What is it?" He said, "It is it." I beg you, leave the language of oratory and the chain of words and the end of it, and let us return to the past story, my brother, word by word. May Allah reward you. There are reasons. If we want to eliminate them, we eliminate them with an atomic bomb, not one by one!

The questioner : One, one.

The Shaykh : We are now in one point: we see if this necessitates a sect, if it necessitates hatred, resentment, distance, mutual enmity? The answer is no. This is your opinion. Nevertheless, what is your opinion? I am telling you: now, when you tried to unify the saved sect and the strangers, you did not bring any evidence at all, except that you see it this way. This is first. Second, you brought the hadith of the strangers, but you did not bring the complete other narrations that clarify the description of the strangers. Bring one of them.

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : Does everyone from the saved sect repair what people have corrupted? Or are there people as Allah the Exalted said: meaning he is content with being upon what the saved sect was upon, but does he not make his habit the habit of reform, advice, enjoining good and forbidding evil? This is not the entire concern of the saved sect, absolutely. Especially since in the other narration, as you know, everyone who is from the saved sect, from the general Muslims, repairs the Sunnah that people have corrupted? No, my brother. And therefore, there is a difference, there is generality and specificity between the two matters. In other words, everyone who is a stranger is from the saved sect, and it is not that I am establishing his opinion. Keep this in mind: it is not necessary for a person to seek out his opinion and defend it when it is not based on a specific understanding of his own. I have not yet conceived of his opinion; what is it? But the unification of the saved sect and the strangers is a mistake. There is generality and specificity. Everyone who is a stranger is from the saved sect, but not everyone who is from the saved sect is a stranger, because this strangeness is a specific description. What is it? The saved sect. I think this is clear. So this, my brother, gives you a lesson. I was not thinking of addressing such a detail. Perhaps in my whole life, and my life with you is short, of course, I do not think I have been exposed to such a clarification at all. And you have witnesses, meaning, but this is the topic now. It touched upon me or compelled me to come and clarify the difference between the saved sect and the strangers, my brother.