Discussion of Hekmatyar and the doubts related to the Afghan jihad.

The questioner : I met Hekmatyar, and he spoke about his creed and the methodology he gave to the Afghans. He also spoke about the fitnah of the killing of Jamil al-Rahman (may Allah have mercy on him), and he also spoke about an important matter: his visit to Qaddafi.

The Shaykh : Where to?

The questioner : To Libya. Hekmatyar visited Qaddafi. This caused a great uproar in the arena there. They considered him one of the loyalists. The Saudi delegation, which included...The Shaykh : Al-Muqri al-Hudhaifi, one of the five members of the Saudi delegation.The Shaykh : Ali al-Hudhaifi was there, along with good shaykhs. Their questions were very precise and delicate, concerning the creed.

The questioner : Are these questions now about al-Hudhaifi?

The Shaykh : As for me, I am commenting on just one of your words, where you repeated the word "creed" and said that he can talk about anything except tawhid (the oneness of Allah). Did I speak the truth or did I err?

The questioner : I did not understand. Our Shaykh, I am mentioning a benefit I gained from you.

The Shaykh : It is the one benefit I gained.

The questioner : One of the benefits, of course, is that I do not answer until I am sure what you intend by the question.

The Shaykh : I want you to understand this always, so I repeat my words. I say that you repeated the word "creed" and that Hekmatyar talks about his creed. My comment now is on your words, not his; I have not heard his words. In my opinion, my comment on Hekmatyar's words will be much more than my comment on al-Sayyaf, because he is a noble scholar. My comment is on your repetition of the word "creed" and that Hekmatyar talks about his creed. I say he talks about his creed, possibly about everything except tawhid in its three categories, so he does not dwell on it. What is your opinion? Is it correct or not?

The questioner : According to this lecture, it is correct.

Another questioner : I have a note...

The Shaykh : No, allow me. I want to build on this good testimony. I want to build on it. Why does he not dwell on this, which is the cause of the problem?

The questioner : Meaning, if tawhid is divided into three categories, is the problem solved?

The Shaykh : Yes, the problem will be solved. It is solved in the sense that some hadiths occurred between you and me regarding... I was citing the saying of Allah the Exalted in the story of the Jews and their catching of fish, and so on. From this perspective, I say the problem is solved. Because when al-Sayyaf, as we heard and saw, dwells on it, saying and erring, and those who attack them say, "These are not people of tawhid," when he says, "We believe in tawhid in its three categories, which the true people of tawhid believe in," he indicates by the word "true people of tawhid" that there is another type of tawhid. Then he clarifies this word as he wishes, for those who accuse him of not being a person of tawhid. So he has no blame after they persisted in accusing him, or whatever the case may be, he has presented an excuse.

The questioner : Shaykh, my interaction with al-Sayyaf, Hekmatyar, and Yunus is that they are revolutionary people, not scholarly. I mean, their speech...

The Shaykh : Even al-Sayyaf.

The questioner : Even al-Sayyaf, and he is the mildest of all, but he is not scholarly. He is a revolutionary, and some contradictions come out of his speech, but when you inquire of him, he clarifies them to you.

The Shaykh : O Professor, may Allah reward you. Necessity is the mother of invention. They fell into this great, unfortunate calamity. And in fact, the position of the jihad and its continuation is largely delayed. So why do they not take this wise position and speak about his creed? What is the benefit of his speaking about his creed if he does not dwell on the root of the creed? What is the benefit? No one has accused them of not believing in Allah and His Messenger. No one has accused them. If Hekmatyar speaks about anything related to the creed, there is no need for this speech. But the aspect they must speak about, because they are under accusation, they turn away from.

The questioner : Hekmatyar will say in this meeting, "We believe in Allah as Lord, Islam as religion, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as Messenger. We do not rely except on Allah, and we do not call for aid except to Allah." Meaning...

The Shaykh : All this speech is of no benefit. I know, I told you, all Muslims say "Book and Sunnah." All Muslims testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. All the destroyed sects, except the saved sect, share with the saved sect in saying "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." And yet they differ from the saved sect. So these are from the saved sect, if Allah wills. What prevents them from proclaiming their creed, which is the decisive factor in ending the fitnah for one who does not want to stir up fitnah? But, by Allah, those who want to fish in muddy waters...

The questioner : In this tape, I remembered that the Saudi delegation asked him exactly these same questions: "Why do you not publish? Why do you not speak about your creed? Why do you put others in a position where they attack your creed and say you are polytheists?" He said, "I am responsible for the Afghans." He responded, "I am responsible for the Afghans." Approximately forty or thirty books—I do not remember the index—in Persian, Pashto, and Urdu, directed to the Afghan people, are all about the creed and methodology, the Book and the Sunnah. And so on. He says, "I have spoken about the creed repeatedly and in the sermons."

The Shaykh : The previous objection returns: he did not speak about tawhid.

The questioner : He spoke about tawhid and detailed it, saying, "As for the Arabs, they do not need this from me. What would I be among the scholars of the Arabs?"

The Shaykh : No one asked him to teach the Arabs. No, this is the speech of politicians first of all. Let us hear the previous part.

Another questioner : My Shaykh, I say regarding the dwelling of our brother Iyad when al-Sayyaf or Hekmatyar is mentioned.

The Shaykh : Iyad is absent.

Another questioner : Excuse me, Fares. Regarding their creed, I say, and Allah knows best, this is not even sufficient.

The Shaykh : What is it?

Another questioner : Even if, meaning in the tape, Hekmatyar or al-Sayyaf appeared and said, "My creed is the creed of the people of the Sunnah and the community. I believe in tawhid al-rububiyyah (oneness of lordship), tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship), and tawhid al-asma' wa al-sifat (oneness of the names and attributes)," I say, O Shaykh, this, and Allah knows best, is not sufficient. This is my opinion. And I give an example for this: Abdullah Azzam (may Allah have mercy on him). I heard with my own ears, and he went to Saudi Arabia, and on the minbars of Saudi Arabia, he was speaking with a loud voice, in bold terms, recording this. He said, "Some people accuse us, and the group of Da'wah to the Qur'an and Sunnah, that our creed is not the creed of tawhid. But I now testify from this minbar, and let all people know, that my creed..." and he mentioned this. If he believes this, it is blessed for him. But as you mentioned just now through your speech, are there in their gatherings the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the head of the jihad? We interacted with them. I sat for a full month in the guesthouse of the mujahideen of Abdullah Azzam, and by Allah, nothing of this was touched. This is one thing. In contrast, I sat the other month with...The Shaykh : Jamil al-Rahman. All their gatherings and all their talk were about the creed. So now the question is posed to the brother Fares: if this is his creed, did he not call to it in his fronts?

The Shaykh : No, no, they do not call to it.

The questioner : It is not sufficient, my Shaykh, that he himself declares his creed, but rather...

The Shaykh : O my brother, "Whatever a person has of a trait, *** Even if he thinks it is hidden from people, it will be revealed."
The Shaykh: If these people were enthusiastic about the call to tawhid, the call to the truth, first, the call would have spread. Second, they would have been exposed to the Afghans themselves, because the Afghan people are Hanafi, strict in the branches, and Maturidi in the creed. Why is Jamil al-Rahman rejected by the Afghans? Because he carries the correct creed. So if Hekmatyar or al-Sayyaf—I am not saying if they were Salafis—if they were proclaiming the call to tawhid, they would have suffered what Jamil al-Rahman suffered. And therefore we say that the parties, the political parties, are among their harms that they use politics to abandon the call, because they know that if they proclaimed it, the word of tawhid in its correct meaning, this gathered crowd whose votes they want to win would turn away from them.

Another questioner : This is the other matter. Following up on our discussion regarding 'Abd Allah 'Azam (may Allah have mercy on him), he used to constantly say, "O people of good, you who object to them, O people of good, this Afghan people, as you know, are of the Hanafi school and ignorant. Instead of talking about this, call them to the truth, because we believe they are ignorant. So, O scholars, come to jihad instead of talking while you are in your countries, and call these people." Regarding the matter our brother Fares mentioned about the amulet, may I ask our brother Fares: When did this happen, and did you see it with your own eyes? Did you see with your own eyes that man who removed the amulet and threw it away?

The questioner : I saw it with my own eyes.

Another questioner : What year?

The questioner : ... Last year.

Another questioner : That is fine. I heard about this incident in detail before 1988.

The Shaykh : Do you mean a similar one, not this one?

Another questioner : Yes, exactly. The point, my Shaykh, is that they are exaggerating the issue. Let us assume it is true. We, my Shaykh, were at the Anصار guesthouse, which is run by a man named Faisal al-Thaniyan. The Afghans who were working with them up to that time were wearing amulets. So I and some of our brothers went there, and after we sat down and admonished them that this is shirk (associating partners with Allah) and so on, we took them and opened them. By Allah, my Shaykh, they contained nothing but scribbles and talismans. This is one case. If there are two points: if this story is true, then they must still have them now, meaning the one who said a year ago, i.e., 1990, up to now, and they have not changed them. And in 1988 as well, these people were not on the front lines but in Peshawar. There was no one admonishing them, no one pointing out the important matters of 'aqidah (creed). So when they mention it on video, and this is what we hope for, we hope that this 'aqidah is at the core of the belief of Sayyaf and Hekmatyar. And this is not enough, because the responsibility lies on those under them, whether they are five thousand or two hundred, I do not know the number you mentioned, because they are obligated to call them to Allah and to the tawhid (the oneness of Allah) that was mentioned.The Shaykh : .

The Shaykh : So here is a note, Abu Mujahid. Is correcting the 'aqidah of these millions more important in the Shari'ah, or is this jihad? What do you think? Is this a difficult question? Do not be embarrassed, because the question is personal and has no relation to jihad. Do you understand my question?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, do you want to answer it?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Please.

The questioner : The principle is that 'aqidah is far more important than any other matter. 'Aqidah and its correction are far more important than any other matter; indeed, it is the foundation. So if there is an error in the 'aqidah, there is an error in everything.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. Why do they not do this more important thing?

The questioner : But the Russians raided them while they were in shirk, and I did not find except a small group among them that was calling to jihad, the group of Hekmatyar and Sayyaf, and they began to strive in jihad and teach. And this is what Hekmatyar mentioned on this tape: they are correcting the 'aqidah and repelling the Russians.

The Shaykh : What did they do before that?

The questioner : Before the Russians entered, I do not know.

The Shaykh : They did nothing. Like the Muslim Brothers, they did nothing. The group of Maududi, what is the name of their party? The Islamic Group. What did they do regarding the 'aqidah of tawhid? Nothing. There is no one on the face of the earth who cares about 'aqidah in its correct meaning except these scattered people on earth, except the strangers who belong to the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf (the earliest generations), under various names. Here, for example, in Jordan, and in Syria, the Salafis in Egypt, the supporters of the Muhammadan Sunnah, in Pakistan and India, the Ahl al-Hadith (people of the hadith), and so on. These are the ones who care about rectifying the 'aqidah. The rest of the parties on the face of the earth do not care except for blocs and partisanship. So you are now speaking realistically, but we do not go back to who was calling? Sayyaf says a word that has meaning: Jamil al-Rajman (may Allah have mercy on him) pledged allegiance to him, and he was a Salafi. If Jamil al-Rahman was a Salafi before the jihad, well, do you think Hekmatyar was a Salafi? I do not think so, and I hope he was a Salafi.

The questioner : He states that on the cassette.

The Shaykh : States what?

The questioner : He says, "I am a Salafi."

The Shaykh : Well, but was he calling to the group around him as Jamil al-Rahman did?

The questioner : In his books, he divides them like the others: 'aqidah, and so on.

The Shaykh : These books came after the jihad. I am talking about before the jihad, indeed, before the Russians occupied Afghanistan.

The questioner : Shaykh, Hekmatyar, before the Russians entered Afghanistan, was in the Faculty of Engineering in the first year, and his age was between twenty-five and twenty-eight, I do not know exactly. So where did he get his information, and he was in the Muslim Brothers?

The Shaykh : The information from the Afghan shaykhs, is that not so? ThisThe student : Where did he get the knowledge of prayer and fasting, and so on? Where did he get it, if not from his shaykhs? Well, are there Salafi shaykhs, people of the hadith, in Afghanistan who call to the Book and the Sunnah?

The questioner : Before, no. Now they exist in abundance. And as I mentioned to you previously, now the trend in the north, in Takhur and in Badakhshan, especially in Badakhshan, and in Kandahar in the south, and in ... and its surroundings, now the Salafi methodology has begun to spread, and no one is objecting at all, even the Afghans. In the first year, when they saw someone raising his hand from the standing position, they were surprised and would say, "This is a Wahhabi," and other such things. Now it is normal; we do it in front of them, it is customary, and they ask about this matter.

The Shaykh : Now a question comes back to you: This is thanks to whom?

The questioner : Thanks to the group calling to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and thanks to some of the Salafis who undertook this matter.

The Shaykh : So the important thing is, thanks to the callers to the Salafi methodology, and not thanks to partisan politicians, in any case.
Al-Halabi : When our brother Abu Mujahid, may Allah reward him with good, summarized the words of Hekmatyar on the tape which we have not been able to watch now, he was saying, "We rely on Allah and we seek aid from Allah," and so on. We say, we accept this, and no one denies it. And this reminded me of something that happened once. We went a few years ago to discuss with 'Abd al-Qadir 'Isa in his house, and perhaps we mentioned some of that to you. What was he saying, my Shaykh? When the discussion got to that point, he would say, "Excuse us, because we deny the deviant Sufis. They used to call us Wahhabis in Aleppo." So the discussion went until we reached the issue of istighathah (calling for aid). We said, "What do you say about the one who says, 'Help, O Messenger of Allah'?" And here is the point: I told him, "Seek aid from Allah!" But he did not mention to him the Shari'ah ruling that this is kufr (disbelief) with Allah, and so on. You want it in a good manner, but do not tell him, "Do not seek aid except from Allah." That is a known thing, but what is the ruling of this act?

The Shaykh : This is what we keep going around.

Another questioner : ... The one who told him to be bold and ask him where Allah is located. Our brother 'Ali, look into it.

The Shaykh : This reminds me of the Muslim Brothers in Damascus, Syria. What were they saying to me? "You just call to the Sunnah, do not fight the bid'ah (religious innovation)."