The discussion between Shaykh Ibrahim Shuqara and the questioner.

Shuqara: The first question: Which do you prefer, that the brothers meet in every place on the earth, or that they remain divided?

The questioner : That they meet on the truth; mere meeting does not work.
Shuqara: I do not think meeting on falsehood, I mean.

The questioner : But I wanted to add a condition.

The Shaykh : And why the condition? Fear of being too general.

The questioner : Fear that no one will understand the speech.
Shuqara: Okay, I agree, and this condition is in the belly of the poet, as they say. Now, if meeting is preferable to you over separation and division, and if agreement is possible on the lowest level of meeting, is it rejected on the truth, of course? Is this rejected or accepted?

The questioner : On the lowest level of meeting, there is no doubt that it is accepted.
Shuqara: Do you think there is a difference between us and the brothers you mentioned, such as the brother Safer and others, and Salman? Do you think there is agreement between us and them on the foundation of the creed, or do you not think so?

The questioner : I think there is agreement.
Shuqara: If we have agreed on the foundation of the creed and that none of us contradicts the other in it, does the difference on matters other than the foundation of the creed lead to the separation we see or feel now?

The questioner : The separation you feel now is not caused solely by the fact that we differed in methodology.

The Shaykh : The same answer applies.

The questioner : The cause of this separation is the criticism of scholars and the belittling of others.
Shuqara: You answer my question, may Allah reward you. You answer my specific question.

The questioner : The difference is in a branch, but this branch is accompanied by following desires and wronging people, which makes it a major difference.
Shuqara: By Allah, if you would just be patient with me for a bit, just one question, answer me, meaning your answer should be to the question. Do we ask again, or do you answer the same question?

The questioner : I answer the question; it does not necessitate.

The questioner : It does not necessitate separation.
Shuqara: Okay, well, if it does not necessitate separation and separation occurred, do you believe that the cause of this separation is the branches outside the foundation of the creed, or something else?

The questioner : I do not believe the cause of the separation is anything other than these branches and what accompanied them.
Shuqara: I did not ask you about what accompanied them. I have a goal in my question, may Allah reward you. If agreement was reached on the foundation of the creed and we agreed that there is no difference between us and them on this foundation, and that the branches or what is outside the foundation of the creed does not lead to difference, then if there is a difference, why is this difference? Why this difference? This is my question.

The questioner : ... There is agreement on the foundation of the creed and the cause of the difference is the branches, so why this separation? The cause of this separation is what accompanied this difference in the branches: following desires, wronging others, accusing them, criticizing them, belittling them, and turning people away from them.
Shuqara: Okay, I ask you a question. Did this which you mention remain exclusive to them without others, and did it not extend to others? Or did others also participate in what they did?

The questioner : They were exclusive in this, and others participated with them in the criticism and belittling, both before them and after them. This is what I understood.

The Shaykh : In following desires.

The questioner : In this, others participated with them, both before and after.
Shuqara: Beautiful, but I mean, I do not mean the general people, but I mean the opponents who see them as being on other than the truth. If you see that the others fell into what those fell into.

The Shaykh : I do not think that is what he means. It is clear to you.

The questioner : I clarified his intent to me. My answer is that they may have participated with them.

The Shaykh: Who is it?

The questioner : From our opponents.

The Shaykh: Who is it?

Another questioner : From the opponents of Safer and Salman, did they fall into what they fell into?

The questioner : From the opponents of Safer and Salman, did they fall into what Safer and Salman and their like fell into? Yes, they fell into it.
Shuqara: This is an answer. Okay, okay. What is the solution to the desire that these people fell into and that those people fell into?

The questioner : The cure?
Shuqara: Excuse me, or which is better in the sight of Allah and the people: the one who leaves his desire while he is in the right, if there is truth in the desire, or the one who does not leave his desire while he is on other than the truth?

The questioner : The one who leaves his desire who is in the right.
Shuqara: Even if he is in the right in his claim that those are on other than the truth and they are people of desire. Okay. Very beautiful. So why do we not do that?

The questioner : Because we do not think ourselves to be following desires. We think ourselves to be refuting them with religion.

The Shaykh : It did not give you an answer.
Shuqara: Your answer... Because let me tell you something. Look, Brother Khalid, I am as certain as we see this sun in the fourth hour of the day. I say that the hostility and enmity that exists between two parties, one party cannot escape, or they cannot both escape, from falling into desire. Because the nature of hostility, may Allah reward you, generates this and makes the cause present, which is that the person afterwards, especially if there is aversion in the hearts, must be following desire. And of course, you have now answered that our hostility with them is not the result of following desire, because we see ourselves as being in the right. Do you think if we directed this question to Safer and his like, would their answer be different from your answer, or the same as your answer?

The questioner : The same answer applies.

The Shaykh : If, may Allah reward you, from here I say that the desire or the error, or let us say the causes of the difference that exist between the two parties, usually cannot appear in their true form completely, and that each party says, "I am in the right," and these causes may not contain truth and may be all desire, and the reverse is also the case. Therefore, what I want here, Khalid, and I mentioned this to you, is that not delving into these matters, especially since we agreed on the foundations and the difference was only in the branches, that this difference should not lead to this. Why? Because I remember, or let us say, many of the brothers who opposed their brothers in the branches, while they and them had agreed on the foundations, that they turned against their brothers and became defenders of those who differ from them in both the foundations and the branches. They became defenders and supporters of them in their falsehood against their brothers. This happened. Therefore, the results are not as you think they are easy in the hostilities that usually occur between brothers on the same methodology. Rather, the results are bitter and thorny and hanzal, and they are bitter and 'uqum, and the hostility and enmity that comes upon the affections, the affection of the hearts. This is what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) warned against So this difference that usually occurs between brothers leads to such things, and therefore the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) warned against it. So it is better, and I, of course, truly mentioned from what we mentioned, a book written by one of the brothers in the Holy City of Medina, in which he refutes Safer. The one who wrote this book had written another book before it, in which he opposed Safer completely. And we know, and I told you and asked you, I told you, which of them is in the right? Is Safer in his first book when he mentioned the Gulf War, or the brother so-and-so who also wrote about the Gulf War and was against what Safer wrote? And I mentioned and said: No, Safer is more in the right than that.

The questioner : I do not remember. It is not with me. It may be with someone else. I do not remember.
Shuqara: It is not with you in one of the sessions, the session in your house, or the other session.

The questioner : It may be with someone else.

The Shaykh : From Jeddah.
Shuqara: We ask a question. Of course, let us say the brother Rabee, and we refer to him as the brother Rabee, wrote a book. Who is in the right in your opinion?

The questioner : In the matter of seeking help, I seeThe Shaykh : Rabee as being in the right.

The Shaykh : If it is not him. If so, what do you want to build on this? You have now heard the answer?
Shuqara: May Allah reward you. As long as you see that Rabie is on the right, I wanted to give an example of that. We do not want you to retract your opinion in this matter; rather, we say that if you had inquired, verified, read, looked, and reflected upon the evidence presented by both parties, I think you would have returned from this opinion. I think you would have returned. Why? Because the truth is, we are not with Safer because he is Safer, and we are not against Rabie because he is Rabie in this issue. It could be the reverse, just as you are. But we only want to show the truth in this case or that one. Was it not better, in every one of these cases where their brothers, who share the same methodology and the same creed—one creed—differed in this issue, that there be agreement or contact between them so that the matter becomes clear in all its details and becomes manifest, instead of this disagreement which leads to further disagreement, as you say, that it will lead to a difference in belief and creed? What was better?

The questioner : There is no doubt that what you mentioned is better, and I believe that it was done.
Shuqara: Your presence.

The questioner : I was not present, but I have letters and messages that passed between them, and discussions, and then writings followed.
Shuqara: Okay, I say that it was done. Did you do this yourself?

The questioner : Yes, I did.
Shuqara: You did it, meaning in the disputed issues?

The questioner : No, not in all issues.
Shuqara: Okay, was it not better, my brother Khalid, you see that Safer is a symbol or Rabie is a symbol, and both are on the call to the truth, and there is no difference between them in creed, but they differed in this issue, which is a secondary issue now. I say, if you had stood between the two parties as a barrier, saying to this one, "Do not say what this one says," and to this one, "Do not say what this one says," and that they meet on a single point, and you be the reconciler between them, is this not better for you?

The questioner : I did this and tried to bring Safer andThe Shaykh : Rabie together more than once, and Safer evaded and refused in the end, saying the meeting would be atThe Shaykh : Abdul Aziz ibn Baz. Then whenThe Shaykh : Jamil (may Allah have mercy on him) was killed, we gathered atThe Shaykh : Abdul Aziz's place, and Safer was present in the gathering, soThe Shaykh : Abdul Aziz, after the discussion, said, "Gather among yourselves and issue a statement and send it to me so we can publish it in the newspapers, condemning the killing ofThe Shaykh : Jamil and threatening the parties that did what they did. So Safer, at that very moment, offered his house, saying the meeting would be at my house. We were in Taif, and we had come from Jeddah, andThe Shaykh : Rabie was coming from Jubail, and his house was the closest place, soThe Shaykh : Rabie said, "I have no objection." It was a suitable opportunity for that meeting, from which he had evaded for a long time, to take place, especially sinceThe Shaykh : Rabie had tried to meet with Safer through me and through others, and even by himself he tried many times but could not; it did not work out for him. When we met at his house, it became part of the discussion, but Safer evaded the topic and did not want to open a discussion except for one thing.The Shaykh : Rabie said, "We do not want the Ikhwan (Brotherhood) mentality. Remove the Ikhwan mentality from your mind, and do not raise the youth on the Ikhwan mentality. Raise the youth only on the Salafi methodology and on the love of the people of hadith, and not on attacking them and accusing them of being agents, and so on. In every instance, and do not raise them on plays and anthems, and so on. And he says, "Yes, Shaykh Rabie, yes, I do not raise them. I absolutely do not. By Allah, we have nothing but the Salaf, we have nothing but this." This is how he would answer in that situation. But the action, of course, contradicts. He says one thing in the gatherings, but in actions, he contradicts. His action contradicts his saying in many places. So this happened.
Shuqara: Is this contradiction creedal or secondary?

The questioner : It could be so. It could be so. If this contradiction, where his action contradicts his saying, is creedal hypocrisy, and this is what I disavow, then at least it is practical hypocrisy.
Shuqara: If so, may Allah reward you, it is not permissible for you, given the sum of these questions we directed, to end up with one thing, which I think is that the disagreement, whether it is secondary or between us specifically, should not lead to this disagreement and to each of us considering the other's honor as permissible to violate. Do you see this as violating honors, my brother Khalid?