Discussion of Shaykh Rabi'’s response to Sayyid Qutb.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Abu Layla: Is it possible, Shaykh, that this point you are researching with the Shaykh?
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : It seems Brother Sami found some things.
The Shaykh : No, we found them, praise be to Allah. You are putting your feet in cold water and burdening others.
The questioner : No, if you have something ready, give it to us so we can review it with the Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Why, my brother, we did not...
The questioner : I did not pay attention to it, my brother.
The Shaykh : This is the reason.
The questioner : Look, he said, "It seems as if he did not..." It is as if.
The Shaykh : Our observation is on the word "as if." Is that permissible? This is not an exaggeration. And what do you think of this title: "Sayyid Qutb describes the secularists and the wicked as sincere, guarantees them freedom, describes the scholars as professionals, calls them 'men of religion,' and threatens them with humiliation and enslavement." Now, regarding those he calls "men of religion," glory be to Allah. The first time I traveled to Madinah when I was appointed to teach, I lived next to Shaykh 'Umar Filata, may Allah remember him with good. I left the house in the morning for the mosque and met an Azhari Shaykh. You know their turbans and fezzes. I greeted him, and after some conversation, he asked, "What are you?" I said, "I am a man of religion." We engaged in a long discussion, the conclusion of which was that this, my brother, is a tyranny we imported from the expression of the disbelievers, and it is not permissible to use it, my brother. The detailed discussions found among some of our Salafi brothers should not be requested from others. So if Sayyid Qutb said about our scholars that they are "men of religion," this is part of such an error. This Azhari is an Azhari scholar, and this one is not an Azhari scholar, yet this term passed for them. And on this occasion, I took advantage of this term with a priest in a long story, which is not the place to mention now, and it contains the argument of the Muslims against the disbelievers. A discussion took place between me and a Maronite priest, dressed entirely in black, from his long black cap, which you know, to a black robe, to black socks, to black shoes, and so on. He denied to us how we can say that Ataturk committed disbelief and apostasy because he placed the fez on the Muslims. We told him, "No, if the matter stopped there, the affair would be small." I mentioned to him his changing of the Shari'ah and making the female heir equal to the male, and so on. I discussed with him the issue of imitating the disbelievers, which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade, and which Islam is unique in among the other laws, and its importance in Islam's care that Muslims must maintain their Islamic identity. The priest's answer was this: "The matter has no relation to belief and no relation to the law. This clothing has become a universal thing, meaning everyone wears the same uniform, and so on." After discussing this topic, I said to him, "Do I understand from you that you see no objection to removing this black cap and putting on a fez with a white turban on it, and appearing as a completely Muslim Shaykh?" He said, "No, no, no." The point is, I said to him, "Why? Since this clothing has no relation to religion and belief?" He said, "No, we are men of religion." I said to him, "This is the difference between us Muslims and you Christians. You Christians have two classes: men of religion and men without religion. But we Muslims, we are all men of religion. What is permissible for the greatest is permissible for the smallest, and what is not permissible for the greatest is not permissible for the smallest. So we do not have 'men of religion'; we have men of knowledge, people of different levels of knowledge, and without knowledge. But as for religion and adherence to its rulings, all Muslims are equal."
The questioner : This is Sayyid's expression...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : This title you are reading, whose title is it?
The Shaykh : Sayyid Qutb. He is quoting, saying, "Chapter Five. Our brother Sayyid Qutb describes the secularists and the wicked as sincere." Here, whose tape is this? Yes, indeed. As sincere, and guarantees them freedom, describes the scholars as professionals, calls them "men of religion," and threatens them with humiliation and enslavement. Here, then, what does he say? Second, what are the ideas for which Sayyid guarantees that they will not be suppressed and that their voices will not be crushed? Are they Muslims? I suspect they are the socialists, the secularists, the communists, and the rest of the sick of heart and soul. It is not enough, Professor, for us to establish the argument against Sayyid Qutb by suspicion, even if it is a strong suspicion, but by certainty, because "This is the truth, there is no obscurity in it *** So leave me to the intentions of the people of the path". Why? So that we first expand the circle of response to this man with suspicions, while we have certainty. I mean, I am still with my advice to the man, and this is our duty from two aspects: first, he is one of us and within us, a Muslim; and second, he is one of our brothers who serves knowledge, so he has two rights over us.
The questioner : This title has something to be criticized for; it is Shaykh Rabi'.
The Shaykh : Of course, there is an exaggeration.
The questioner : Here, "men of religion" is quoted from Sayyid Qutb; he says "men of religion."
The Shaykh : Why did I bring you the story?
The questioner : If he is the one who is wrong.
The Shaykh : The issue is not only with "men of religion." I am telling you it is not strange for Sayyid Qutb to describe the scholars as "men of religion," because I brought you the story of the Azhari. This is a mistake without doubt, but what is the relation of this mistake to his belief in the unity of existence, or his denial of some authentic hadiths...
The questioner : Among the mistakes he fell into.
The Shaykh : Good, if Allah wills. His contradiction of the people of the Sunnah in interpreting the word of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), where he interprets it as sovereignty and authority, and empties it of its basic Islamic meaning to which all the messengers called. I wrote here in my own handwriting long ago: "An apparent exaggeration." Where did he take from that he empties it?
The questioner : From what he said. What did Qutb interpret "La ilaha illa Allah" as? He said, "There is no worshipped entity with truth," and he did not say, "There is no existent entity."
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide us and you. If we know that the man is not a scholar and does not express himself well, but did he deny elsewhere that seeking aid from other than Allah and swearing by other than Allah, and so on, which are among the complements of, so that we build upon it that he emptied the meaning of tawhid from the word "La ilaha illa Allah" and restricted it to sovereignty?
The questioner : He did not interpret it with the correct interpretation with which the Salaf interpreted it. He interpreted it as "There is no existent entity except Allah, there is no worshipped entity except Allah." So did he empty it of its meaning?
The Shaykh : You are now saying he interpreted it as "there is no existent entity." Is that correct?
The questioner : I saw in his books, in "Milestones on the Path" and others, I took it from him and said, "This is contrary to the correct interpretation."
The Shaykh : I do not think so.
The questioner : Fine, we will bring it to you, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : You did not find even a phrase from Sayyid Qutb.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah[Al-Anbya 21:37] I have not finished my sentence, do you want to answer me? It appears that you are originally a Sufi from the people of unveiling.
The questioner : Sufi, Sufi. I was a Sufi, an Ikhwan, and a Tablighi, praise be to Allah. Allah guided me when I heard a sermon in Aleppo in the house of our brother... a lecture. At that time, I left what I was upon and joined the Salafi call. So may Allah reward you well.
The Shaykh : There is no power and no strength except by Allah. Do not blame me if our topic now is defending a person from among us and within us. This is a mistake.
The questioner : If Allah wills, we do not defend anything but the truth.
The Shaykh : In summary, Sayyid followed a path in declaring people disbelievers that no Muslim scholar would stand upon. He throws words about in the chapter of sovereignty and declares the general public disbelievers without sin, without establishing the argument, and without paying attention to the details of the scholars in this chapter, on one hand. And on the other hand, he does not care about the shirk (associating partners with Allah) of the graves committed by the Rafidah (Twelver Shi'ah), the extreme Sufis, and those who follow them. And he does not see in this place and in many places that these shirks are contrary to the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah." Now, as you say, he does not see in this place and in many places that these shirks are contrary. Where did he take "he does not see"? Is this negation from his words, from Sayyid Qutb's words, and you agree with him, or is it a deduction?
The questioner : He took it from some of his words: "These people committed shirk not because they directed worship to other than Allah, nor because they circumambulate the graves, nor because they rule by other than what Allah revealed." This is the text of the expression he brought.
The Shaykh : Fine, if it is permissible for you to say to me, "Give me the evidence that our brother Rabi' is strict," give me the evidence for what you attribute to Sayyid Qutb, who is dead.
The questioner : What he said in his books.
The Shaykh : Give me the evidence.
The questioner : In his books.
The Shaykh : And I am telling you, in his books.
The questioner : Fine, it is there.
The Shaykh : And I am telling you, what I say is that our brother Rabi' is strict, but you are not convinced by me. You say, "In his books." Give me the evidence, right? Fine, if it is permissible for you to give me the evidence, I am not allowed to say to you, "Give me the evidence."
The questioner : Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Bring the evidence.
The questioner : I do not have it at hand right now; do you have it?
The Shaykh : And I do not have it at hand: "La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah" (There is no power nor strength except with Allah).
The questioner : Do you not have, my brothers, the book "Al-Ma'alim fi al-Tariq" (Milestones on the Path), or what our brother Shaykh Rabee' said, interpreting "La ilaha illa Allah" as "La hakim illa Allah" (There is no ruler but Allah), and that he does not care about supplication to other than Allah or worship of other than Allah? This is what I have quoted from him.
The Shaykh : This is now an example I have set for you. Do you know the group that opposed us in methodology in some aspects today, those who are called "Saruriyyah" or whatever, and let us name individuals, and there is no objection, because I am now in the process of verifying, for example, the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:8] Now, what is the sin of Salman al-Oudah and Safer al-Hawali in the error they fell into? Is it from the perspective of tawhid (the oneness of Allah)? I am asking you?
The questioner : From the perspective of 'aqidah (creed), no, but from the perspective of methodology.
The Shaykh : Good. I believe that those who do not know the 'aqidah of these people accuse them of what Sayyid Qutb is accused of, with a very, very large difference between Sayyid Qutb and these two. These two, had it not been for the deviation they deviated into due to their engagement in politics and so on, when their case is raised, some of our extremists say, "These are from the Muslim Brotherhood." I say, may the Muslim Brotherhood in all Islamic lands be like this! The Muslim Brotherhood in some countries fights tawhid (the oneness of Allah), whereas these people call to tawhid and explicitly fight those who seek aid from other than Allah, and they deny the Sufi paths, and so on. May the Muslim Brotherhood also be like this! But those who do not know these people, when they see them deviate into political action, they disparage them. And in this regard, the disparagement is in its place, but it is not permissible to say, "These people abandoned the call to tawhid" and so on. Sayyid Qutb is not like these people, without a doubt. Absolutely not. We also do not want to attribute to him what he did not explicitly state. His words, in what suggests, or rather explicitly states, "wahdat al-wujud" (the unity of existence), this is quoted in his books, in his tafsir (exegesis), and so on. But I want from you now evidence that he permits seeking aid from other than Allah and permits everything that contradicts tawhid al-'ibadah (the oneness of worship).
The questioner : I say he says, "These people disbelieved not because they call upon other than Allah or seek refuge in other than Allah, but because they ruled by other than what Allah revealed." He does not care about the widespread practice in Egypt regarding graves.
The Shaykh : We do not want explicit phrases.
The questioner : If Allah wills, I will bring phrases from "Al-Ma'alim fi al-Tariq" (Milestones on the Path).
The Shaykh : And what is it?
The questioner : It seems Brother Sami found some things.
The Shaykh : No, we found them, praise be to Allah. You are putting your feet in cold water and burdening others.
The questioner : No, if you have something ready, give it to us so we can review it with the Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Why, my brother, we did not...
The questioner : I did not pay attention to it, my brother.
The Shaykh : This is the reason.
The questioner : Look, he said, "It seems as if he did not..." It is as if.
The Shaykh : Our observation is on the word "as if." Is that permissible? This is not an exaggeration. And what do you think of this title: "Sayyid Qutb describes the secularists and the wicked as sincere, guarantees them freedom, describes the scholars as professionals, calls them 'men of religion,' and threatens them with humiliation and enslavement." Now, regarding those he calls "men of religion," glory be to Allah. The first time I traveled to Madinah when I was appointed to teach, I lived next to Shaykh 'Umar Filata, may Allah remember him with good. I left the house in the morning for the mosque and met an Azhari Shaykh. You know their turbans and fezzes. I greeted him, and after some conversation, he asked, "What are you?" I said, "I am a man of religion." We engaged in a long discussion, the conclusion of which was that this, my brother, is a tyranny we imported from the expression of the disbelievers, and it is not permissible to use it, my brother. The detailed discussions found among some of our Salafi brothers should not be requested from others. So if Sayyid Qutb said about our scholars that they are "men of religion," this is part of such an error. This Azhari is an Azhari scholar, and this one is not an Azhari scholar, yet this term passed for them. And on this occasion, I took advantage of this term with a priest in a long story, which is not the place to mention now, and it contains the argument of the Muslims against the disbelievers. A discussion took place between me and a Maronite priest, dressed entirely in black, from his long black cap, which you know, to a black robe, to black socks, to black shoes, and so on. He denied to us how we can say that Ataturk committed disbelief and apostasy because he placed the fez on the Muslims. We told him, "No, if the matter stopped there, the affair would be small." I mentioned to him his changing of the Shari'ah and making the female heir equal to the male, and so on. I discussed with him the issue of imitating the disbelievers, which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade, and which Islam is unique in among the other laws, and its importance in Islam's care that Muslims must maintain their Islamic identity. The priest's answer was this: "The matter has no relation to belief and no relation to the law. This clothing has become a universal thing, meaning everyone wears the same uniform, and so on." After discussing this topic, I said to him, "Do I understand from you that you see no objection to removing this black cap and putting on a fez with a white turban on it, and appearing as a completely Muslim Shaykh?" He said, "No, no, no." The point is, I said to him, "Why? Since this clothing has no relation to religion and belief?" He said, "No, we are men of religion." I said to him, "This is the difference between us Muslims and you Christians. You Christians have two classes: men of religion and men without religion. But we Muslims, we are all men of religion. What is permissible for the greatest is permissible for the smallest, and what is not permissible for the greatest is not permissible for the smallest. So we do not have 'men of religion'; we have men of knowledge, people of different levels of knowledge, and without knowledge. But as for religion and adherence to its rulings, all Muslims are equal."
The questioner : This is Sayyid's expression...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : This title you are reading, whose title is it?
The Shaykh : Sayyid Qutb. He is quoting, saying, "Chapter Five. Our brother Sayyid Qutb describes the secularists and the wicked as sincere." Here, whose tape is this? Yes, indeed. As sincere, and guarantees them freedom, describes the scholars as professionals, calls them "men of religion," and threatens them with humiliation and enslavement. Here, then, what does he say? Second, what are the ideas for which Sayyid guarantees that they will not be suppressed and that their voices will not be crushed? Are they Muslims? I suspect they are the socialists, the secularists, the communists, and the rest of the sick of heart and soul. It is not enough, Professor, for us to establish the argument against Sayyid Qutb by suspicion, even if it is a strong suspicion, but by certainty, because "This is the truth, there is no obscurity in it *** So leave me to the intentions of the people of the path". Why? So that we first expand the circle of response to this man with suspicions, while we have certainty. I mean, I am still with my advice to the man, and this is our duty from two aspects: first, he is one of us and within us, a Muslim; and second, he is one of our brothers who serves knowledge, so he has two rights over us.
The questioner : This title has something to be criticized for; it is Shaykh Rabi'.
The Shaykh : Of course, there is an exaggeration.
The questioner : Here, "men of religion" is quoted from Sayyid Qutb; he says "men of religion."
The Shaykh : Why did I bring you the story?
The questioner : If he is the one who is wrong.
The Shaykh : The issue is not only with "men of religion." I am telling you it is not strange for Sayyid Qutb to describe the scholars as "men of religion," because I brought you the story of the Azhari. This is a mistake without doubt, but what is the relation of this mistake to his belief in the unity of existence, or his denial of some authentic hadiths...
The questioner : Among the mistakes he fell into.
The Shaykh : Good, if Allah wills. His contradiction of the people of the Sunnah in interpreting the word of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), where he interprets it as sovereignty and authority, and empties it of its basic Islamic meaning to which all the messengers called. I wrote here in my own handwriting long ago: "An apparent exaggeration." Where did he take from that he empties it?
The questioner : From what he said. What did Qutb interpret "La ilaha illa Allah" as? He said, "There is no worshipped entity with truth," and he did not say, "There is no existent entity."
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide us and you. If we know that the man is not a scholar and does not express himself well, but did he deny elsewhere that seeking aid from other than Allah and swearing by other than Allah, and so on, which are among the complements of
So know that there is no deity except Allah.
فاعلم أنه لا إله إلا اللهThe questioner : He did not interpret it with the correct interpretation with which the Salaf interpreted it. He interpreted it as "There is no existent entity except Allah, there is no worshipped entity except Allah." So did he empty it of its meaning?
The Shaykh : You are now saying he interpreted it as "there is no existent entity." Is that correct?
The questioner : I saw in his books, in "Milestones on the Path" and others, I took it from him and said, "This is contrary to the correct interpretation."
The Shaykh : I do not think so.
The questioner : Fine, we will bring it to you, if Allah wills.
The Shaykh : You did not find even a phrase from Sayyid Qutb.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah
Man was created of haste
خلق الإنسان من عجلThe questioner : Sufi, Sufi. I was a Sufi, an Ikhwan, and a Tablighi, praise be to Allah. Allah guided me when I heard a sermon in Aleppo in the house of our brother... a lecture. At that time, I left what I was upon and joined the Salafi call. So may Allah reward you well.
The Shaykh : There is no power and no strength except by Allah. Do not blame me if our topic now is defending a person from among us and within us. This is a mistake.
The questioner : If Allah wills, we do not defend anything but the truth.
The Shaykh : In summary, Sayyid followed a path in declaring people disbelievers that no Muslim scholar would stand upon. He throws words about in the chapter of sovereignty and declares the general public disbelievers without sin, without establishing the argument, and without paying attention to the details of the scholars in this chapter, on one hand. And on the other hand, he does not care about the shirk (associating partners with Allah) of the graves committed by the Rafidah (Twelver Shi'ah), the extreme Sufis, and those who follow them. And he does not see in this place and in many places that these shirks are contrary to the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah." Now, as you say, he does not see in this place and in many places that these shirks are contrary. Where did he take "he does not see"? Is this negation from his words, from Sayyid Qutb's words, and you agree with him, or is it a deduction?
The questioner : He took it from some of his words: "These people committed shirk not because they directed worship to other than Allah, nor because they circumambulate the graves, nor because they rule by other than what Allah revealed." This is the text of the expression he brought.
The Shaykh : Fine, if it is permissible for you to say to me, "Give me the evidence that our brother Rabi' is strict," give me the evidence for what you attribute to Sayyid Qutb, who is dead.
The questioner : What he said in his books.
The Shaykh : Give me the evidence.
The questioner : In his books.
The Shaykh : And I am telling you, in his books.
The questioner : Fine, it is there.
The Shaykh : And I am telling you, what I say is that our brother Rabi' is strict, but you are not convinced by me. You say, "In his books." Give me the evidence, right? Fine, if it is permissible for you to give me the evidence, I am not allowed to say to you, "Give me the evidence."
The questioner : Yes, it is permissible.
The Shaykh : Bring the evidence.
The questioner : I do not have it at hand right now; do you have it?
The Shaykh : And I do not have it at hand: "La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah" (There is no power nor strength except with Allah).
The questioner : Do you not have, my brothers, the book "Al-Ma'alim fi al-Tariq" (Milestones on the Path), or what our brother Shaykh Rabee' said, interpreting "La ilaha illa Allah" as "La hakim illa Allah" (There is no ruler but Allah), and that he does not care about supplication to other than Allah or worship of other than Allah? This is what I have quoted from him.
The Shaykh : This is now an example I have set for you. Do you know the group that opposed us in methodology in some aspects today, those who are called "Saruriyyah" or whatever, and let us name individuals, and there is no objection, because I am now in the process of verifying, for example, the saying of Allah the Exalted:
and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness
ولا يجرمنكم شنآن قوم على ألا تعدلوا اعدلوا هو أقرب للتقوىThe questioner : From the perspective of 'aqidah (creed), no, but from the perspective of methodology.
The Shaykh : Good. I believe that those who do not know the 'aqidah of these people accuse them of what Sayyid Qutb is accused of, with a very, very large difference between Sayyid Qutb and these two. These two, had it not been for the deviation they deviated into due to their engagement in politics and so on, when their case is raised, some of our extremists say, "These are from the Muslim Brotherhood." I say, may the Muslim Brotherhood in all Islamic lands be like this! The Muslim Brotherhood in some countries fights tawhid (the oneness of Allah), whereas these people call to tawhid and explicitly fight those who seek aid from other than Allah, and they deny the Sufi paths, and so on. May the Muslim Brotherhood also be like this! But those who do not know these people, when they see them deviate into political action, they disparage them. And in this regard, the disparagement is in its place, but it is not permissible to say, "These people abandoned the call to tawhid" and so on. Sayyid Qutb is not like these people, without a doubt. Absolutely not. We also do not want to attribute to him what he did not explicitly state. His words, in what suggests, or rather explicitly states, "wahdat al-wujud" (the unity of existence), this is quoted in his books, in his tafsir (exegesis), and so on. But I want from you now evidence that he permits seeking aid from other than Allah and permits everything that contradicts tawhid al-'ibadah (the oneness of worship).
The questioner : I say he says, "These people disbelieved not because they call upon other than Allah or seek refuge in other than Allah, but because they ruled by other than what Allah revealed." He does not care about the widespread practice in Egypt regarding graves.
The Shaykh : We do not want explicit phrases.
The questioner : If Allah wills, I will bring phrases from "Al-Ma'alim fi al-Tariq" (Milestones on the Path).