The Shaykh’s discussion with the student regarding the causes of the disagreement between the Shaykhs and Safer al-Hawali.

The Shaykh : ... I want to say that I want you to benefit from his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Take the perspective of this man who has aged in the call to Allah, with all his ups and downs, and this professor al-Khatib, and this student of knowledge, and so on. Look at what they think of these words. Then you will correct your perspective from your mirror. Your mirror is Zayd, Bakr, and 'Amr. Do not be so enthusiastic about your opinion that you say about this da'iyah (caller to Islam) that his evil is greater than his good. I seek refuge in Allah from being among the ignorant. My brother, this speech is very serious in Islam, by the consensus of all parties and all groups, that you say about a man that his evil is greater than his good. The scale of justice is not in your hand. You do not judge his good or his evil. This is not a scale in the hand of any human being, absolutely. On the Day of Resurrection, when the good deeds and bad deeds are weighed and the scale of good deeds outweighs the scale of bad deeds, then he will be among the successful and the righteous. But today, no person can say that so-and-so’s evil is greater than his good. This is the greatest proof that you have not benefited from your mirror. Therefore, your saying that you have these things in your record to study them—I swear by Allah, I am not in need of them, because I have listened to the tapes from the beginning to the end. And our brothers know that I do not have time to even listen to so-and-so’s opinion and so-and-so’s opinion in the tapes. But I seize the opportunity of my car ride, and I put this tape in and listen to it, and I listen to this tape, and so on. Thus I benefit from the free time when I cannot sit behind the desk and study and transcribe, and so on. So, may Allah reward you, this enthusiasm—we see that it harms you and does not benefit you. I mean, if you stopped at your saying that he said, “He boasts,” if we stopped at this speech, there would be no harm. But that this speech and that speech leads you to judge him that his evil is greater than his good. If so, which Muslim can we say has more good than evil? May Allah reward you.

The questioner : I mean, I consider that when I judged that his evil is greater than his good, to the best of my knowledge, I did not judge regarding what is with Allah.

The Shaykh : My brother, you do not know anything about the man. You only know what you hear.

The questioner : I know what I hear. I know from his reality and I look into it. Have you heard? I sat with him. I know all of this. How do I not know, O Shaykh? How do I not know? And as they say, the son of Makkah knows its valleys best. There is a man here, and I am the one who knows him best, and I am the one who knows him best. And before I hold him accountable, and before I consider it an accountability, I presented these accountabilities to some of the people of knowledge, and they agreed with most of these accountabilities.

The Shaykh : The people of knowledge will tell you that I, in principle, do not sit with you in this session and discuss with you in this discussion. The people of knowledge will listen with you and tell you, “By Allah, it is true that they listened to the tape from the beginning to the end. And is this speech an explicit text regarding what you hold?” The people of knowledge to whom you refer, regarding their virtue and their benefit to the Ummah, and so on, they do not have this patience. And you know this reality.
Shuqara: Perhaps it is permissible, brother Khalid. Perhaps you presented a question verbally that was not recorded.

The questioner : No, it was not a verbal question. I did not present it to the Shaykhs and they heard it.The Shaykh : Rabi' heard many clips and we clarified these accountabilities.

The Shaykh : Well, this is also a mistake now. A mistake because...The Shaykh : Rabi' has a relationship with Safer that is different from your relationship with Safer.

The questioner : I mean, it is the speech of peers, which is not accepted, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : You are also asking me.

The questioner : I mean, now the speech of...The Shaykh : Rabi' now...
Shuqara: ...

The questioner : There is no enmity now, for example, like with...The Shaykh : Nasser responds to one of those who oppose him and responds to them in scholarly issues.The Shaykh : Rabi' does this with them. There is no enmity that makes...The Shaykh : Rabi' wrong them, because between him and so-and-so, and between me and so-and-so, absolutely. This is what we do not believe about...The Shaykh : Rabi', nor about any other of the people of knowledge. We do not think that if this happens, then every response to any of the people of knowledge is considered, by Allah, an enmity between him and him. If so, I would not accept Zayd’s speech about 'Amr because it is an enmity.
Shuqara: I want to ask you, brother Khalid. I do not disparage brother Rabi' at all. I say that this is the nature of things, that the human sense of enmity, if it is judged alone, does not lead a person to come out with good regarding his Muslim brothers. How much more so for one who has an enmity with someone? This nature, when you read the speech of the predecessors about each other, I mean, when you read al-Sakhawi’s speech about al-Suyuti, you say, “This is a person who speaks with knowledge.” He does not speak with knowledge, in reality. I mean, I say that what I want to say is that brother Rabi', we know from him what you know from him, much good. But in reality, as our Shaykh indicated, and would someone like Rabi' ask about Safer!

The questioner : Why would he not ask?

Another questioner : The question, perhaps, relates to the person of Safer, but perhaps brother Khalid’s intention was the speech about the truth in Safer’s speech and the falsehood in it, not the person of Safer. This is taken from the side of knowledge. But the side of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) regarding Safer, this is not taken from Rabi' because, I mean, I expect this was brother Khalid’s intention.
Shuqara: We, in this time, in reality, al-jarh wa al-ta'dil is postponed, I mean, it comes in the second degree. This is the nature of the time we are living in now. We are not in the era of the Companions or the era of the Tabi'un. In reality, the humanity in us is what judges us on things and many things. This is one matter. And then look, there is another thing, that what grew among the scholars and was planted in their hearts as a result of the fitnah (trial, discord or temptation) that was in the lands of the Muslims is what made the scales change in the hearts.

The questioner : I mean, it is as if you are indicating that the Gulf fitnah was the cause of how things are, for example? Did the Gulf fitnah, for example, make 'Umar from among the people carry a grudge against Zayd in his heart and hold a grudge against him and wrong him... and fabricate against him? This could be people of knowledge, virtue, religion, and piety?
Shuqara: I am asking you, brother Khalid, now. I did not know this, and you are a son of the Kingdom. I did not know this among the Shaykhs.

The questioner : That there is something in the hearts. I do not know that there is something in the hearts.

Another questioner : ... I know because, I mean, a group started to disparage the scholars and that they do not understand the reality, and the other group stood up to respond to them, and from this arose...
Shuqara: We, may Allah reward you, did not detail it, but we indicated that there is something.

The questioner : There is something in the hearts.

The Shaykh : Ask your friend.

The questioner : Did you not know, O Abu Talib, that for example, one of the people of knowledge here carries something against someone in his heart, in the sense that he disagrees with him on something in his heart?

Another questioner : I do not think that this is the question.The Shaykh : Muhammad, who the speech fell upon, is that whether the Shaykhs, I mean, did a disagreement occur between them in the Gulf fitnah, and its beginning was the Gulf fitnah, or not? A disagreement occurred between the Shaykhs and the scholars from the Gulf fitnah.

The questioner : And it made the scales differ and change.

Another questioner : The methodologies became clear, because each person became clear to himself, as I told you, that a group started to disparage the scholars, and the other group stood up to respond to them. So from this standpoint, each person started to look at the other as having a methodology, and from this methodology he launched, and considered it the methodology of the other. I mean, for example, disparaging the scholars, this group.
Shuqara: You only changed the words that I have.
Al-Halabi : We say the gap widened after the Gulf War.
Shuqara: I mean, you brought the intended meaning that I have with other words only. I mean, you agreed with me, I mean.

The Shaykh : This is the reality.
Al-Halabi : And it is sufficient for us, by Allah, O our Shaykh, from the negatives of this...
Shuqara: Excuse me, I do not want to ask Khalid. I will ask you a question. If the Shaykhs, let us say the ones who differ, we do not say the ones who are hostile, if one of them sits in a session with a group, will his session be free from disparaging that person?

The questioner : I mean, at this time?

The Shaykh : And not in the past of time.

The questioner : Now, you will find in it what is free from speech, but this is a fitnah (trial, discord or temptation), and by Allah, a gathering hardly goes without it. For example, be patient, ask me. How is the criticism? The criticism, O Shaykh, is like this: they criticize these people by saying that they criticized the scholars and spoke about the scholars and the Committee of Senior Scholars, and they attacked them and refuted them in this aspect only. It is not hostility toward their persons or anything personal that made them attack them in this way, following their desires. Rather, it is regarding the methodology that became clear to them from the beginning of the fitnah of the Gulf, and they began to attack them on that basis.
Shuqara: You, in fact, with your last statement, we forgot your first statement. We said, to some extent.

The Shaykh : I did not forget, I did not forget you.
Shuqara: ... Yes ... I do not say, Brother Abu Jabir, may Allah bless you. We wish, and we ask Allah the Exalted and Majestic to purify the hearts of the da'is (callers) and scholars from every speck in them. This is what we hope for, and we call upon Allah night and day, and He does not place in our hearts any hatred for those who believe.

The Shaykh : Oh, wonderful, oh, wonderful.
Shuqara: But, my brother, is this a real existing thing? I am asking you?

The questioner : Yes, if Allah wills, it is a reality. It means, if Allah wills, as I told you, O Shaykh, the criticism is based on a methodology that became clear to him, and it is not something personal. The criticism is based on a methodology that became clear to him, and it is not something personal. Rather, a methodology became clear to a group that this methodology contradicts the methodology of the Salaf (the earliest generations) by criticizing the scholars, until one of them said, "Ask us, we are the ones in a comfortable position of speech, ask us." As for the scholars, they fall into some pressures; under some pressures, they fall into some compromise.
Shuqara: I am now asking you one question: how many people spoke and attacked?The Shaykh : Nasser and accused him of ignorance.

The questioner : Allow me, O Shaykh, I will answer you. Complete my answer, and then perhaps I will answer you on this question, if I am.

The Shaykh : You did well in saying "perhaps."

The questioner: Yes, that is right, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : He is more deserving. The point is, may Allah bless you, O Shaykh, that this person who was criticized did so based on a methodology that became clear to him, and nothing else, just that.
Shuqara: Our methodology does not differ, O Professor. If I say I have a methodology and you have a methodology, where is the methodology of the Salaf? No, my brother, this methodology is one methodology that does not change with the change of time, the difference of circumstances, or the change of place. It does not differ. May Allah bless you. Allow me, I say frankly that this was not what carried them to what they fell into. Rather, something else carried them. I do not want to name it frankly. No, no, I am not speaking about...The Shaykh : I am speaking about what happened between...

The questioner : What happened in the second methodology, this one that began to criticize the scholars. As I mentioned to you, these are scholars who fall under some pressures, under some courtesies, under influences and compromises. Do you agree with them, O Shaykh?
Shuqara: I am just asking you a question: what do you mean by compromise?

The questioner : Abandoning the truth to compromise with the person?
Shuqara: What is the meaning of compromise in its general concept? Is it not hypocrisy?

The questioner : Yes, Shaykh.
Shuqara: Okay, fine. When one accuses the other of hypocrisy, what remains after the accusation?

The questioner : This is what we say. Safer says it, O Shaykh. This is what he says about the Committee of Senior Scholars.
Shuqara: My dear, or O Abu Jabir, I am not saying that Safer says something different from what I am saying. I am saying this is what is said between the two parties.