A discussion between the Shaykh and the student regarding Safer al-Hawali's answer to a question posed to him, the substance of which was: Did Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) have a group?

The questioner : The praise is due to Allah; we praise Him, seek His help, and seek His forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah the Exalted from the evils of our own selves and from our evil deeds. Whomsoever Allah guides, none can misguide, and whomsoever He leaves to misguide, none can guide. And I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah alone, with no partner, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger. As for what follows, we are happy to sit with our Shaykh, the renowned scholar and hadith master,The Shaykh : Nasir al-Din al-Albani. This is the tenth day of the month of Jumada al-Ula in the year 1413 of the Hijrah. In this meeting, we wish to hear from our Shaykh, from another recorder, some of the tapes we have collected from the words of some preachers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and specifically in the city of Jeddah. These are words from Dr. Safer ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Hawali from a collection of his tapes, lectures, and lessons, which were before the Gulf fitnah and after the Gulf fitnah. We believe that they contain methodological deviations that contradict the methodology of the Salaf of this Ummah, and that they also help the listener to form an opinion about the speaker regarding which methodology he is following: is he following the Salafi methodology as we have learned it from our Shaykh and others (may Allah preserve them), or is he following another methodology that contains Salafism and other matters that contradict the methodology of the Salaf? We hope our Shaykh will allow us to do this, to listen to some of the clips and for him to comment on them as best he can, correcting them or otherwise, as his excellence (may Allah preserve him) sees fit.

The Shaykh : I see that, before anything else, and even though I will listen to those clips, the correct thing is that it is not good to cut out a segment from the speaker's words and comment on it, because it is well known among scholars that context and preceding discourse are among the clarifiers. So, based on this, I see that the correct thing is to judge the tape based on its content from beginning to end. As for taking a segment, we might comment on it by stopping at that segment, and the context and preceding discourse might prevent us from making this judgment, and from it being a correct judgment. If you decide that it is necessary to listen to the clip and answer it, then I have no objection, but I see that the correct thing is what I mentioned just now.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O Shaykh. Also, this idea was in my mind while I was collecting these tapes, and I was careful not to fall into such a thing so that no injustice would be done to the one we want to judge. So I was very careful to first take, for example, some of the questions asked in the lecture, and the answer would be related to that question and not to what came before it in the lecture. Then, what I cut out from the lecture, I tried, as I think, and was very careful, to bring the preceding discourse and context of the speech so that the listener's judgment would be, to a great extent, in accordance with justice, if Allah wills.The questioner : Then the answer would be related to this question and not to what came before it in the lecture. Then, what I cut out from the lecture, I tried, as I think, and was very careful, to bring the preceding discourse and context of the speech so that the listener's judgment would be, to a great extent, in accordance with justice, if Allah wills.

The Shaykh : All right, do you have an example of a question and answer where this answer is a place for scrutiny, as it came in your question?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So let us start with something like this.

The questioner : I will mention a question, or we will hear it from his own mouth.

The Shaykh : It would be better, of course, to hear it from his own mouth.

The questioner : We will hear it from his own mouth. If you rewind the tape now, it is in this small recorder. From the beginning of the tape, there is a question, and usually the lecturer reads the question himself and then begins the answer.
The tape: This brother says: Is it true that the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was the leader of a group that issued from his opinion and fought under his banner, and that he played the role of the general imam in the absence of the righteous general imam, and that he and his students used to go out and forbid evil with their hands, break the vessels of intoxicants, and impose discretionary punishments for that? And do the people of Islamic groups have an argument in that? The answer: Sometimes we are affected by a certain word, and it may be that there is nothing wrong with it. The word, I mean, the word "group" has become a bogeyman. This is a group, especially if it is Ibn Taymiyyah's group. Fear Allah, O Shaykh, there is nothing wrong with it. What is the group? Ask: What is the group? Allah commanded the group, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said No, no? The word "group" is not a frightening thing, it is not a blameworthy thing. Rather, what is the group? The meaning points to you from the gathering. So what is this gathering? People gathered for good. Is that forbidden, or could it be obligatory?

The Shaykh : Is there anything up to here?

The questioner : Yes, as I think.

The Shaykh : All right, we will listen to you.

The questioner : As I think, here the question was about Islamic groups.

The Shaykh : I am not asking you about the question. This is an answer, is it not? I am asking you about this answer up to here. Is there anything in it? That is what we are asking you.

The questioner : He mentioned that Allah Blessed and Exalted is He commanded the group, and that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded the group.

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah bless you, there is no need. You are repeating what we heard. We want you to listen to the point of criticism in what we have heard so far.

The questioner : I think they mixed things up when they mentioned these hadiths; they mixed them up.

The Shaykh : This is what concerns us.

The questioner : And he applied these hadiths to the issue of Islamic groups, even though, as far as I know, these hadiths...

The Shaykh : So far, this has not said anything other than that Allah commanded the group. There is nothing here of what you are saying now. May Allah bless you.

The questioner : He considered the word "group," as he said, to be a bogeyman, and a word that we take sensitivity from.

The Shaykh : All right, do you have a phrase where he supports all the existing groups?

The questioner : Up to now, here, no.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is the research. May Allah bless you. And that is why I asked you: is there anything up to here? You said yes. What is the thing that is in your mind? But here there is nothing. And we will take the opinion of our brothers. What do you think? Is there anything?
Shuqara: The brother Khalid, it seems to me, and Allah knows best, that he built his answer to your question, or about your question, on the speech he knows and which is coming, and did not intend to be restricted by the text of the question based on what is settled in his mind. So, if you please, our Shaykh, let us listen to the rest.

The Shaykh : It is like that, but I want to cut the heard speech piece by piece, and we will proceed to the end. Up to here, there is nothing. We will see the second thing, where it is. If we finish at another clip and there is nothing again, and so on.
Shuqara: I mean, in the opinion of our Egyptian brothers, even even.

The Shaykh : Yes, please, continue.

The questioner : May Allah bless you. Here the answer was not on the question. I mean, the question, as you heard, O Shaykh, may Allah bless you, was: Did the Shaykh al-Islam have a group, to the end of the question. So the answer was on the group, which is contrary.

The Shaykh : It is not said, may Allah bless you, that the answer was, because the answer was not completed. You might ask me a question: Is this haram or halal? So I am giving a lecture in front of me, and I tell you: It is halal or it is haram. If you hear this introduction, you will say: This is not an answer. And I agree with you in blank: it is not an answer. But this is an introduction and a preamble to what the speaker or the answerer wants to reach. So this is not an answer; there is no problem with this. This is a preamble. Let us see what is behind it. All right, please.
The tape: People gathered on a religious innovation... So the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) did not go out with his students. No, and this is the duty of the scholars now. We need these scholars now. When the committee started, this one is transferred, this one is expelled, this one is dismissed. That is their time. If the scholars and the students of the scholars would go out and forbid evil, they would stand up and fill this void, this gap. This is what is happening with us: the forces of corruption and spreading corruption are pouncing on these sincere workers in the committees. So the one who performs the duty is one of two things.

The Shaykh : Stop here for a moment. Is there anything?

The questioner : He is demanding that the scholars should...

The Shaykh : No, he is not demanding. He is stating this reality that we have heard. Is there anything in it up to here?

The questioner : No, I do not see it.

Another questioner : I have an observation, and it is that he decided on the answer.The questioner : And he said: Yes, indeed, the Shaykh al-Islam had a group. And he answered the beginning of the question after elaborating on the group, which is the group that the Book and the Sunnah encouraged. Then he said: Yes, the Shaykh al-Islam had a group. And if you want to...

The Shaykh : No problem, let us clarify the meaning of "group." Do you not have a group?

Another questioner : No, I do not have a group.

The Shaykh : And not your wife, and not your child, and not your brother, and not anything.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: OkayThe Shaykh : There is a group with him, but I do not have a group. The important thing, my brother, is that these groups should be upon the Book and the Sunnah. As for the groups, they are currently scattered. Do you believe that the people of the Sunnah and the community are truly so, and not just by the later convention? And therefore, to escape this convention, we say the Salafis. Are they gathered in one town, or are they scattered in many lands of the Islamic world? The answer is like this. Fine, there is no Salafi group here? Yes, and you have them, and there, and there. These are all groups. The word "group" in itself has a meaning in the Arabic language that is not objectionable, but it may become objectionable due to what is attached to it or associated with it, such as a pledge of allegiance, as found with some parties, and the appointment of an emir such that he is in the position of a caliph who, if he orders something that is not originally obligatory, and so on. It is this group, defined in this manner and restricted by these conditions, that is rejected. Now, he affirms the group, and I affirm the group. What is wrong with that? This is a necessity and a reality that I do not deny, and you do not deny it, by your admission that there are Salafi groups in all Islamic lands.

Another questioner : Fine, Shaykh, did the Shaykh al-Islam have a group that fought and enjoined good?

The Shaykh : Please, do not ask me now except within the limits of the discussion.

Another questioner : Within the limits of the question, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : We have not heard from him, my brother, a definition of the group that is attributed to him up to now. We have not heard from him anything regarding the specification of the group that is attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah. You are coming to ask me this, which is premature. We want to understand the man's opinion: is it correct or incorrect?

The questioner : He says, Shaykh, yes, the Shaykh al-Islam had a group. This is in answer to the question: Did the Shaykh al-Islam have a group that enjoined good and forbade evil? The question is, Shaykh, is it true that the Shaykh al-Islam had a group that fought under his banner and enjoined good and forbade evil? So he answered after digressing.

The Shaykh : Be patient, stay with what comes later. Why are you in a hurry, people? Since you know the whole answer, let us, my brother, clarify the matter thoroughly so that we are clear about the affair and do not attribute to some of our Muslim brothers, if not the Salafis, things that their words do not bear. Up to now, I say I have not seen a reprehensible matter. So do you say you have seen something up to now, or are you speaking from your mind?

Another questioner : This is the problem for me regarding the answer.
The tape: May Allah protect us from the punishment of the one who has it, and I seek refuge in Allah.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. The answer might be a lecture. So let us cut it into segments. When we reach the problem, we stop there. Yes.
The tape: Fear Allah. No one discusses it, or rather, everyone praises it, whoever and wherever. One person... went to the market and saw a woman displaying her adornment, especially if her hair was blonde, she might be an ambassador, she covered her head... they said these are the extremists, the strict ones, and so on, and a fitnah occurred for every young man. If you went to the market intending to forbid something... you did not think about why that reckless person rushed. The second possibility is that one who does not know how to forbid evil, and does not measure wisdom or benefit, forbids evil. The third possibility is that evil is forbidden with wisdom. Scholars, students of knowledge, and their students bear the forbidding of evil with endurance. They may be harmed, they may be fought.

The Shaykh : I think there is nothing wrong.
The tape: I have not erred, praise be to Allah, in manner or in anything. This is what should be. If the scholars leave that, who will do it? A scholar went to forbid evil, and they said, "He has a group," and "He has a group." Fine, a group for forbidding evil. May Allah reward him a thousand times, Shaykh. The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) had a group. We called it a group or we did not call it a group, it is not a problem. The important thing is that he and his students were the ones carrying out enjoining good and forbidding evil and calling to it. The entire Ummah was attached to the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him). And Imam Ahmad's funeral: wonders were seen in it. But Imam Ahmad's funeral: he died as the scholar of the Ummah and its master. The caliph wished that Imam Ahmad would drink a cup of water at his place, just so it could be said among the people that Ahmad drank at the caliph's place. If this caliph had no lawful wealth, and this caliph was just and righteous, then it is not strange that hundreds of thousands came out for his funeral, as mentioned. But the strange thing is the man who died in prison, unarmed, imprisoned, subdued, having nothing, and yet everyone in the city came out. It was said that only one man did not attend the funeral of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and all the people came out for his funeral. A man like this, if he enjoins good and forbids evil, this is his duty and his role. The entire Ummah was with him. And therefore, the sultan and his army took him into account, even if they wanted to confront him. And he did not want to confront them. It is not in the interest of the da'wah to confront and engage in direct conflict with the people of evil and corruption or the authorities. What is the benefit in that? The benefit is to spread and disseminate the da'wah to the Ummah with the least amount of harm. This is what a person must do... that Ibn Taymiyyah, yes, had a group. A group that would change and forbid, there is nothing wrong with it. But is this gathering upon falsehood? Did the Shaykh al-Islam have an organized party such that its membership is whoever supports and raises and shouts and screams in the street saying "Long live Ibn Taymiyyah"...? Everyone who knows the truth and knows the religion and knows the Sunnah is with us. I mean, even the least of you now, the Islamic world in its current state now has come to realize this truth. I mean, Algeria, of course, follow the news. I mean, the revolution and the government with the army and the intelligence and everything, they put them in the street. They put out a quarter of a million, as it is said. When the preachers and shaykhs said, "Let us put out a march," they put out 3 million. These are not a party in the sense that we fear here. It is a secret organizational network. No, people said, "We will go out. Do you want the rule of Allah? Go out, or whoever bought... they are applying socialism on you. They went out saying, 'We want the rule of Allah.' Women, about 700,000, went out saying, 'Rule us by the Qur'an. We want the hijab. Abolish free mixing. Abolish sports in girls' schools. Abolish this and that.' And you saw that, perhaps in the news, and you read it. A Ummah goes out in this manner. This is one of the methods of da'wah and influence. And yes, these people did not go out except that behind them are scholars, behind them are followers, behind them... they are not like this group. This is the problem. The important thing is the goal and the method and the manner: is it truth or falsehood?

The questioner : I mean, first, he mentioned that Islamic work has begun to realize that party politics and secret organization no longer work, and he gave the example of Algeria, even though the reality in Algeria is Islamic groups and parties. So it is as if what is in his mind that he rejects is only from the forbidden groups, the secret organizations that have an organization and a secret network, as if this is what is in his mind that he rejects.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. You should not dissect this dissection and say, in the plain wording of his speech, as if we want to create a gap between us and this brother. All this speech he has uttered from the beginning until now contains nothing to be taken against him, except that we want to take something against him, as if he wants such and such. This is not what should be done. May Allah reward you, especially since he agrees with you in creed, the Book, the Sunnah, and the methodology of the pious predecessors. The rule is to seek an excuse for your brother. This man is an orator and a lecturer. I am an orator, and I am not an orator. A word may slip out of him, meaning, if he reviewed it, he would retract it. So, if you find in a person's speech a word that may seem like an error upon close discussion, and you are like one who watches a match and says, "So-and-so made a mistake, so-and-so made a mistake," perhaps if you were in his place, you would make a greater mistake, because the one who listens is not the one who reads. Therefore, if you find after hearing this speech something that may appear to be an error, none of us is free from sin, but this is not a matter concerning that he opposes us in methodology and calls for factionalism, partisanship, fanaticism, and tyranny, and so on. No, he says, "This is a group." You take a secret word. If he approves of open partisanship, it is not necessary. This open partisanship, if we name it, and he repeats it, call it a group or do not call it a group. I will expand from my side: call it a party or do not call it a party. And we are partisan to the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the pious predecessors. Is there something in this?

The questioner : There is nothing.

The Shaykh : If someone says this speech has nothing wrong with it, and he speaks out about it and stands firm in it, the important thing, may Allah reward you, is to adhere to the correct methodology: the Book, the Sunnah, and the methodology of the pious predecessors. If a person's tongue slips in a lecture or a word, we do not dwell on it and we do not cling to it. There is nothing here, except that we say it would have been better if he had said such and such. We do not make it a place of contention, quarreling, and enmity. This is not what is befitting for us, religiously, at all.

The questioner : We do not make it a place of enmity, but this helps us in understanding that he calls for partisanship and gathering, especially our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : No, he does not call for it. Why do we not take his speech, my brother, from the beginning? Where does he call for partisanship?

The questioner : We take his speech from the beginning and say he calls for partisanship, but he is not able to state it openly.

The Shaykh : Why not the opposite?

The questioner : Because it is clear, my Shaykh, from his actions. His practical and da'wah actions that exist help us, especially.

The Shaykh : Let us leave the actions, my brother. We are standing at this speech.

The questioner : It is just the speech. One person says something, and a person hears it, and another person hears it. One who knows the reality of this man judges otherwise. The rulings differ. I say this speech based on what I know of their da'wah reality and the reality of their da'wah activities.

The Shaykh : This is a departure from the topic, may Allah reward you. This is a departure from the topic. You know something about him; that is another research and is studied. Rather, you wanted to comment on this person's speech. This speech is not permissible to be condemned as having departed from the methodology of the pious predecessors.