Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee on the Reality of Daesh (ISIS)

Questioner: May Allah show goodness towards you; There has been an abundant of criticism on what has been known as Daesh, and all praises belong to Allah. However, the problem is that the majority of people in this time do not know their origin and they do not know their sources, and who they separated from. Rather, you find some who attribute them, meaning those who bomb and blow up things, they attribute to them that they are merely youth, or that they have (peer) pressure (from others), or it is because of unemployment, or magic (has been placed on them), and they say other than that, so what do you advise regarding this, may Allah preserve you.

Answer: Daesh, and what will make you know who are Daesh?! Daesh is an acronym. Some say (the acronym) is like the language of engraving, just as the ant engraves within a seed until it becomes hollow and empty. So this is the language of engraving. Daesh named themselves, and they formed for themselves this acronym, this abbreviated nickname, and it befits them. They call themselves al Dawlah al Islamiyyah Fi al Iraq wa Sham (i.e. Islamic State in Iraq and Sham). So they took the letter Daal د from the word al-Dawlah, and the letter Alif after the Daal, دا stands for Islamiyyah, and the letter Ain داع stands for Iraq , and the letter Sheen stands for Sham. So it was called as an acronym داعش Daesh, meaning al-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah Fi al-Iraq wa Sham; but they have absolutely nothing to do with Islam, and Islam is free from them.

We have not seen anyone in this era equal to them in criminality, nor have we heard in history anyone like them except the Tartars, in what they are upon from their actions, savagery, wickedness, and their inflicting punishment upon the people of Islam. This group, the group Daesh is a miscarriage whom Allah decreed they live, as a test and trial from Allah for the Ummah of Islam. And this group emerged from the belly of al-Khawwan al-Muslimeen (i.e. the deceivers of the Muslims) (which are) the Ikhwanul-Muslimeen; they emerged from them. Their founding mother is this group, and they split away from al-Qaeda, so all of their origins is al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda anil-Khayr [1] (those who sit back and do no good), (but) strive towards evil; (the group) which was formed in Afghanistan following the war [2]. Then, their leadership was transferred, after Abdullah Azzam to Bin Laden, and after Bin Laden to Ayman al-Thawahiri.

Ayman al-Thawahiri was from where? He was from Egypt, a member of the Jama’ah al-Islamiyyah and he was imprisoned after the killing of (Anwar) el-Sadat. Afterwards he was released, then joined what was occurring in Afghanistan at that time. However, he was from the Jama’ah which occurred from it that which occurred from bombings in those early days in Egypt, in the 1970’s and then in the 1980’s.

So Ayman al-Thawahiri was given the pledge of allegiance (as leader) of al-Qa’eda after his predecessor, Usamah bin Laden. Then, when the war started in Sham, [3] that which took place occurred (from tribulation), and I do not want to branch off speaking about the different groups fighting there in Syria, because by Allah, who there is no deity besides Him, I Know each of them, group by group; and if I spoke to you all about each group there would not be enough time, but what concerns us now is this branch (Daesh). So then Jabhat al-Nusrah appeared after everyone initially flocked (to Syria) in order to unite, when they first gathered to fight against the Syrian government who are Nusayri [4] (in belief). So this (group) Jabhat al-Nusrah shaped, as they say, the Islamic wave, or the Islamic movement, but in reality they were part of the al-Qa’eda organization. Perhaps many of you have heard that they openly pledged allegiance to al-Qa’eda, to al-Thawahiri. Then differences arose between them, so the group Daesh split from them. When this split occurred, separation occurred. This group had their Imam they already had pledged allegiance to, so how would anyone follow them (Daesh) and they had no leader?

So they elected for themselves a leader, this Majhool (unknown individual) (Abu Bakr) al Baghdadi. They appeared to unite around him, but in reality the issue is not al-Baghdadi, but there is something (more sinister) behind this, he is only a prop and a presence. But in reality, behind him are leaderships from the takfiri groups who came from Afghanistan. So when they scattered and split up throughout the earth after the incident of September (11th), a reason came for them by which they found an opportunity to unite again, so the affair of Iraq occurred and the tribulations that happened with it. And then the tribulations that happened in Sham followed by way of what they called “the Arab Spring”; but we didn’t see sunshine, we didn’t see except evil, and this is something I always say. So this group took shape (i.e. Daesh), and the deviant individuals of takfir from every place flocked to them. Also, they possess the ability to use media (i.e. videos, social media etc), which allows them to lure individuals more than anyone else like them, because of their ability to use the media, so they succeeded in this aspect.

Likewise, they are a melting pot of people, from Arabs and non-Arabs, and what unites them is the takfiri ideology. So this group took shape, and before, they were weaker than (Jabhat) al-Nusrah. Then they gained strength by gaining assistance from those whom are not hidden from the one who is intelligent. Then, there is what occurred from collusion between them and between the Rafidah. Because they, the Rafidah, are those who aided them in the beginning, up until they were handed over the town of Mosul. I used to say this long ago, in the beginning of their affair, and what’s happening today affirms that. So the one who steps back to hand over to them Mosul for Tehran has established close ties, and what was once hidden became apparent. So they handed over to them this major army base which is in the town of Mosul, the second biggest city in Iraq, and they took it and everything that was in it, and by it they gained strength. They had with them a number of people from Iraq who knew how to use those weapons, and others who had training on how to use those weapons in Afghanistan; so by this they gained strength. After this, what occurred for them took place, from their gaining control over some sources of wealth, and this was by robbing banks, and taking control of some of the Iraqi oil fields; and those who needed oil bought from them for cheap prices on the black market.

So they (Daesh) didn’t lose, and those who bought it didn’t lose, as they profited by purchasing crude oil for a very cheap price. So they (Daesh) benefited from these profits they made, without them having to toil or put in any hard work at all. So again they gain strength by this, and they grew in number and they grew in equipment and resources and reached the point that they reached. So now, when the Takfiris in the Arab and Islamic world saw that strength was in their favor, the favor of Daesh; this wicked group that Islam has not been afflicted in recent times with anyone more wicked than them. So when they saw this strength, from the people were those who were sick (in ideology), and their time came to let out what they held in their chest, so they joined them. And from the people were those who were of feeble intellect who perhaps used to be laughed at, so they lured this type through their media, and thus they traveled to them. And I say, commenting on some speech that came about out of envy; that which came in the question of the brother, that some people only joined them because of lack of employment; I say, ok and some people left to join them and their monthly salary was 15,000 (Saudi Riyals). Did he go because of unemployment? Huh? Why did he go? Because of a creed; their hearts are filled with hatred, rancor, and envy against the people of Islam, we ask Allah’s protection from that. How many people went to them who have high positions of employment? They didn’t go to them because of unemployment, but this is only weakness in religion, and them being overtaken by the devils. Even women went to them, either initially or either later on. Either they followed their male relatives, or went initially because they were upon deviation from their foundation, just like the women of the Khawarij from old.

‘Imran ibn Hittan married a woman from the Khawarij and when he was advised he said I’m going to guide her (to what’s correct), but she caused him to deviate. Up until the point she praised the one who killed Ali (radiyallaahu ‘anhu)(then the Shaykh mentions some poetry she said praising the one who killed Ali, and from what she said praising him that he):

“Only did this to reach the pleasure of the Owner of the throne” and “Indeed I mention him some days and I deem him to be the most hopeful of creation for a good judgment before Allah.”

Is the one who killed Ali the most hopeful of creation for a good judgement before Allah? I seek Allah’s refuge from that. The one who killed Uthman (radiyallaahu ‘anhu), when he cut off his head he began to shake it and roll it with the end of his sword and said “I have not seen the face of a Kafir better than this”! Uthman ibn ‘Afffan, chief of the believers, the one who the angels of the Lord of the creation had shyness of, the one whom the Messenger (H)married two of his daughters to and said “If I had a third I would have married you to her”, and he said “It doesn’t harm Uthman what he does after today”, and he said “Who will prepare the army of hardship [5] and for him will be Jannah”. And he said “Who will buy the Rumah well and for him will be Jannah [6].” So, the Prophet said about Uthman what he said from praise and laudation, and this criminal says “I have not seen the face of a Kafir better than this”! Those (Khawarij), whom  Uthman or Ali (radiyallaahu ‘anhumaa) were not safe from, do you expect the Islamic lands of today to be safe from them?! So this is from another angle. A third angle, and this is unfortunate that we hear this; people say “Our children”, yes, it’s true they are our children, our children in lineage, but those who go to them are not sons of ours!

(Here the Shaykh mentions some poetry in this regard)

The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said (describing the Khawarij) “They have young teeth” what does he mean? They are young (in age), right or wrong? “Foolish in thought”, meaning their intellects are immature. Whoever is young in age, they are young in intellect, O gathering of youth. As for the old man, the world has come upon him because of his old age, and he has gained experience, and he has grown away from being rash, so how about if this is coupled with having knowledge (of Islam)? Beloved ones, there is something that I wish to say to you, and I have said it before, and it is a sad reality and I am directing my speech tonight to my sons from the youth. This is considering that they are still impressionable and their knowledge is limited, specifically those who do not have a background in Islamic knowledge.

I say O my beloved ones, before if we used to see a person wearing the beard, and listen carefully, because this is not in any way to defame the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), however as a warning from those who fall into this; if we saw a person wearing the beard and shortening the thawb upon the Sunnah, we would be happy because of that, and we would be happy if we saw our children accompanying them. We would say, this one is upon good! But now, O my beloved ones, do not be deceived by outward appearance, until you know what that person is upon. Do not be deceived by the beard, yes it a Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), however, these individuals (i.e. Daesh and the Takfiris) have used it for deception. Also, do not be deceived because of the shortening of the thawb. A person may say, O Muhammad Bin Hadi, are you defaming the Sunnah? I will be in a great state of loss if I did that; that is apostasy from the religion of Allah. However, nothing caused me to say this except to warn (from the people of innovation), and I have Salaf in this. And it suffices me in boasting is that it is from the Imam of the Imams, the Salafi, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

This is when it was said to him regarding Harith al-Muhasibi, that he narrates Hadeeth, having humbleness, being tranquil; O my sons, and I specify the youth, pay attention to my words, may Allah preserve you all. They said to Imam Ahmad when he spoke against Harith al-Muhasibi, they said O Abu Abdillah (i.e. Imam Ahmad), he (al-Muhasibi) narrates Hadeeth, the Hadeeth of who? Answer me? The Hadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), with humbleness, tranquility, and he was a pious worshiper. So he said, may Allah have mercy upon him, “Do not let Harith deceive you, not the lowering of his head (out of humbleness) nor the long length of his beard, nor his narrating of Hadeeth”, and in another wording from Ahmad (he said) “Is everyone who narrates the Hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to be sat with?! No, and there is no apology (for what I say), that is an evil man. No one knows him except the one who has become fully acquainted with him.” Ahmad was fully acquainted with him. Listen to the reason my beloved ones. He said, “So and so and so and so sat with him”. He didn’t name those who sat with him, just like now you may know some people and do not want to mention them in order to cover their faults. He said “so and so sat with him and he caused them to adopt the opinion of Yaqub al-Mughazili and the opinion of Jahm (ibn Safwan), so they became destroyed because of him”. Do not be deceived by his long beard or the lowering of his head appearing to be a worshiper, nor his abundant crying and humility, nor him narrating the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), no. So O youth, do not suffice with the long length of one’s beard and the shortness of his thawb, until you know his speech and his ideology, and that he is upon the Sunnah. If you do not, they (may) cause you to adopt the opinion of Daesh. This is one matter; secondly I go back and I say, not everyone who lets his beard grow is a member of Daesh, no by Allah.

However, O my beloved ones, advice necessitates that I mention this to you. So do not be deceived by outward appearance, until you test he who is speaking and until you know what his ideology is. This is because these are our children; these are our beloved children amongst us and between us, walking these lands; these are our children, so we have to diligently look after them. Now you see one of them, nineteen years of age and he blows himself up; nineteen years old and he blows up Masjids; eighteen, twenty years old, what is this? The cause, is this wicked Daesh ideology. By Allah (tell me), people who are praying, they are praying an obligation from the obligations Allah placed upon them; and who are those (praying)? They are soldiers who go out exerting themselves (to protect the land) while we relax. They keep us safe with the safety granted by Allah the Exalted and High; they are at our service. They are killed while they’re in prostration? By Allah, even the disbelievers of old never did this, except one group of them who breached a covenant, and it was the cause that the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) went out for the conquest of Makkah. And the story is that during the expedition of al-Hudaybiyah, some individuals from (the tribe) of al-Khuza’ah entered a treaty with him, and (the tribe) of Banu Bakr entered a treaty with the Quraysh, so they breached the treaty of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) with Quraysh because they were helpers of Quraysh and they laid in ambush for al-Khuza’ah. So ‘Amr ibn Salim came and said (the Shaykh quotes lines of poetry said by ‘Amr indicating the breach of the pact by Banu Bakr and their treachery, and from that which he said):

“And they killed us whilst in Rukoo’ and in Sujood.”

So the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said,

“Indeed you will be given help O ‘Amr ibn Salim.”

So he (the Prophet) commanded with the preparation of the army of the conquest, and they proceeded until they conquered Makkah. This was the only event in history where people killed those praying. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “I have been prevented from killing those praying”. These people, my dear brothers, kill people who pray, and they see this to be from the highest forms of Jihad in Allah’s cause. Is this considered Jihad? This is corruption! We seek Allah’s refuge from that. If the Fitrah is reversed, and the intellects are brainwashed, we seek Allah’s refuge from that. O my beloved ones, O my sons, O youth, do not be deceived by these individuals. You’ve seen these individuals, they swing the heads of the Muslims like the heads of sheep are swung. They burn people, is this, by Allah, from Islam? With all of this, the disbelieving lands said that ten years is needed to eradicate them (i.e. Daesh). Masha’Allah, you eradicated Afghanistan in six months, a whole land in its entirety. What does this show? It shows collusion between these individuals. So O brothers in Islam, this is the reality of Daesh in summary. So beware of the members of Daesh, the Dawahish (i.e. the infiltrators) that have crept in upon us. By Allah, if I knew that one of my children was upon this ideology I would fight him tooth and nail (to return him to the truth), and if I couldn’t, by Allah, the one who there is no deity in truth besides He, I would take him and surrender him to the authorities. I would surrender him to the authorities so they can treat him and he can be cured and become healthy (i.e. upon a sound ideology), while I still can see him, is more beloved to me than he travel to them.

A person related to me a story about a cousin of his; his son left, and he didn’t realize until he was already with Daesh. When he got there he (the son) called. I know the individual but I don’t want to mention his name, (he is) in Madinah. He said to him “O my son come back, why’d you go”? The son replied “InshaAllah I’m coming back to you, you will know, I will show you the right of Allah”. He said “What is it that you saw in us”? He said “I will show you that you all are Kuffar”! He (the father) said “We are Kuffar and you were the one who used to push me in the wheel chair to the masjid [7]”. He (the son) said: “This is the Islam of the hypocrites (that you are upon), and I will be soon returning to you InshaAllah” (i.e. said as a threat). He (the father) hung up the phone and let him be. Look at this evil speech and look at what degree (of evil) this undutiful son has reached. So O my beloved ones, beware of these internet sites on these computers by which these people can enter upon you. Beware of this at all costs. By Allah, that one goes and sings and plays the lute [8] is more beloved to me than he goes to those individuals. This is because if he sings and plays the lute or drinks intoxicants, by Allah he will never attribute this to Islam. All of you (in front of me) if you asked one of them right now (i.e. who sings or drinks etc.) what would they reply? They’ll say “Ask Allah to guide me O shaykh”. Right or wrong? (The brothers respond) “Right”. Would they attribute this evil of theirs to the religion? (Some respond) “No”. It is not possible that they attribute intoxicants to the religion. It is not possible that they attribute intoxicants to the religion, except he who has become blind in his insight, but rather they will say “Supplicate to Allah that he guides us”. But these (members of Daesh) say “You are a Kafir and may Allah guide you”! Guide you to what? To rebellion and to their wicked methodology they are upon. The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)said, O gathering of youth, regarding these individuals “They are young in age, foolish in thought, they utter the statements of the best of mankind (i.e. the Prophet), but they will exit the religion just as the arrow goes through the game”. They try to use proof the statements of the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), but they are far away from it, and they exit the religion quickly, just as an arrow passes through a hunted animal, then they do not return to it, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)said.

And he said “Glad tiding to whoever they kill or whomever is killed by them; indeed whoever kills them has a reward, and indeed whoever is killed by them has a reward. If I was to reach them I would kill them just as the people of ‘Ad were killed.” Is there anything clearer than this speech O my beloved ones? These people deem permissible the blood of the Muslims. In the time of the companions when Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) went to them to debate them, they sat there speaking about him, saying “And you O Ibn ‘Abbas..”, and he was wearing a new cloak. Ibn ‘Abbas said “I saw the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam),wearing a cloak better than this. Today, they (i.e. the Khawarij) have the same speech; they say the scholars are scholars who wear Bishts [9]. What do they really have against them? (The truth) is because they are not upon their methodology. So Ibn ‘Abbas said to them, and he refuted them triumphantly, he said “I came to you from the companions of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam),and I do not see amongst you even one of them”, may Allah be pleased with all of them. Is this a sign of deviation or not? (Some present answer) “Yes”. If they were upon truth and guidance, there would have been at least one companion with them. And regarding them (Daesh) we say the same thing, if it was any good in them, there would have been at least one firmly grounded scholar amongst them, and they do not have even one scholar with them. So beware of them O group of beloved ones, and I seek your pardon if I spoke too long, so pardon me. And what necessitated this was only that it was from advice, which is a right you have over me.

و صلى الله و سلم و بارك على نبينا محمد و على آله و صحبه و سلم

[1]: al-Qa’ed can also mean one who sits, so the Shaykh uses this parable regarding them.
[2]: Meaning the war against the Soviets in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
[3]: Sham here means Syria.
[4]: A branch of the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah sect of the Shi’a.
[5]: Referring to the battle of Tabuk which occurred at a time of extreme hardship due to the severe heat, the distance of Tabuk from al-Madinah and other factors. Uthman came with 1000 camels, 60 horses, 1000 dinars, and 10,000 Dirhams and he placed it in front of the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).
[6]: The Rumah well was purchased by Uthman and is still present in Madinah until this very day.
[7]: Meaning the son witnessed the father pray along with the Muslims, so how can he claim they are Kuffar!
[8]: A stringed musical instrument similar to a guitar.
[9]: A cloak worn over the thawb.
Translation by Abu Suhayl Anwar Wright

Concerning the Doubt that the Origin of Muslims is Integrity, Sunnah and Salafiyyah

Shaykh ’Abdul-Muhsin Ibn Hamad al-’Abbaad Clarifies the Origin of the Muslim is Ignorance:

[Q]: Allaah the Glorified and Exalted says,

O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it.” [Sooratul-Hujuraat 49:6]

Is the report accepted when it comes from other than a rebellious evil person (faasiq), knowing that the origin concerning the Muslim is integrity (’adaalah)?

[A]: The origin concerning the Muslim is ignorance, up until the integrity is confirmed, or its opposite is confirmed.  And if the origin concerning the Muslim was integrity, there would be no need to say that so and so is reliable (thiqah), or to say that he is trustworthy (’adl), or that he is such and such.  That is because this is the origin.  However, the people speak with ta’deel (praise) and tajreeh (criticism) and due to this they say that so and so is reliable and they say due to this that so and so is weak (da’eef).  So this does not mean that if no criticism is found concerning an individual that the origin then is integrity.  And it must not be said at that point that so and so is reliable, merely because no criticism is found concerning him.  So declaring someone reliable must be based upon knowledge about that individual and familiarity with his condition. [1]

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee on the Doubt that the Origin of Muslims is Salafiyyah:

[Q]: And this one says: It is possible for us to call the common-folk of the Muslims: Salafiyyeen?

[A]: No, it is related to their condition and the country in which they reside.  One must look into the land in which they reside.  So if the majority of the people in that land and their origin is like this, then yes.  And if the majority of them are upon innovation, then no.

Shaykh Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee on the Origin Concerning the Muslim:

[Q]: Is the origin concerning the Muslim the Sunnah?

[A]: How can the Sunnah be the origin concerning the people when we have amongst us Rawaafid, and we have amongst us Baatiniyyah, and we have amongst us Communists, and we have amongst us hizbiyyeen and we have amongst us every group.  How can the origin concerning them be the Sunnah?  Who says such speech?  And Ibn Taymiyyah – rahimahullaah – refuted the one who says that the origin concerning the Muslim is integrity. [2] He says this speech is falsehood, because Allaah the Exalted says concerning man that he is unjust and ignorant,

Truly, We did offer al­Amaanah (the trust or moral responsibility or honesty and all the duties which Allaah has ordained) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they declined to bear it and were afraid of it (i.e. afraid of Allaah’s Torment). But man bore it. Verily, he was unjust to himself and ignorant of its results.” [Sooratul-Ahzaab 33:72]

So the origin concerning man is that he is unjust and ignorant.  Meaning, his mere entrance into the Religion of Islaam does not place him upon the level of al-’adaalah (integrity), or as he said.

So how can the origin concerning the people be the Sunnah in the lands where there is utter confusion and the majority of the people are upon other than the Sunnah?!  So if you learned this from a particular school of Salafiyyah, then we will maintain the benefit of the doubt, we will maintain the benefit of the doubt.  As for when the world is in a state of utter confusion and you do not know this from that, then you must learn who is the adherent to the truth.  Due to this, they used to say, ‘Indeed, this knowledge is Religion.  So look to whom you take your Religion from.” [3] As for the one who says that the origin of the people is the Sunnah, then he takes from everyone and his brother.  And Ibn Seereen (d.110H) said, “Indeed, the people did not used to ask about the isnaad (chain of narration).  So when the fitnah (trial, tribulation) emerged,” and it was not the fitnah that is occurring now, it was more hidden than this, ‘They said, ‘Name for us your men.  So if he is from Ahlus-Sunnah, then accept his hadeeth, and if he is from the people of innovation, then reject his hadeeth.” [4] So we ask Allaah to grant us and you success and to increase Ahlus-Sunnah in number.  However, the statements, meaning those that have come by way of talking without restraint, they are not fit to be mentioned.” [5]

Shaykh ’Ubayd Ibn ’Abdullaah al-Jaabiree on an Important Distinction:

Shaykh ‘Ubayd al-Jaabiree’s commentary on al-Qawaa’idul-Muthlaa of Imaam Ibnul-‘Uthaymeen

Clarification of a Sharee’ah Principle: The Muslim who possesses integrity and outwardly manifests Islaam and he outwardly manifests integrity, the basic principle concerning him is that his condition remains upon that.  And if you want, you can say: The basic principle concerning the Muslim who outwardly manifests Islaam and who outwardly manifests integrity is that he remains upon his Islaam and upon his integrity up until that is removed from him by Sharee’ah evidence.  And this was expressed by Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) – rahimahullaah – and other than him: Whosoever has the bond of Islaam affirmed by certainty, then it cannot be removed from him except through certainty.

As for the modern day opponents who oppose us today from the proponents of despicable hizbee memberships, then they do not abide by this principle in the manner that is obligatory.  Rather, they affirm that the origin concerning the Muslim is integrity (’adaalah), and this is falsehood and it is not correct from a number of angles.  From them:

  1. The books of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, which cannot be enumerated.  So if the affair was as they claim, there would be no need for these books, because within them are rulings upon individuals that render them unfit for narration.
  2. And from them: If they affair is as they have affirmed, there would be no need for a Sharee’ah judge to get testimony from witnesses.

And there are several other proofs that are filled with a refutation against this broken principle.” [6]

Shaykh ’Abdullaah al-Bukhaaree on the Doubt that the Origin of Muslims is Salafiyyah:

[Q]: Doubts concerning the manhaj are widespread in my land, so I request from you to clarify these doubts.  And may Allaah reward you with goodness.

The First Doubt: What is the origin of a Muslim: ignorance or is he Salafee?

[A]: The praise is for Allaah that this doubt has been finished off for some time.  We say that the arrows of the Sunnah have assailed all of these doubts – may Allaah bless you.  However, there is no doubt that the people of desires have not slackened in causing doubts and confusion for the people in the issues connected to adherence to the Sunnah and the Salafee manhaj.  However, that which is obligatory is not clarifying the doubt right now.  We will answer without a problem, or we will forfeit answering.  However, for how long will this situation remain?

The obligation upon you, regardless of whether you are the questioner or if others are asking, is to strive in seeking sound Sunnee knowledge and to enrich yourself with it, since it is the best provision.  And due to this, Ibnul-Qayyim (d.751H) – rahimahullaah – said, “And if you are asking about the provision – the provision for travel – then its provision is the knowledge that is inherited from the Last of the Prophets (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam).  So there is no other provision for you besides it.  And whosoever does not take this as a provision, then let him sit with the opponents.  So the companions of those who remain absent and idle are many.  And taking them as an example will not benefit him.”

Therefore, it is obligatory that you be upon sound Sunnee knowledge and be firmly grounded in it so as to repel these doubts.  Rather, some doubts do not even deserve to be mentioned, let alone refuted.  May Allaah bless you.

Is the origin of the Muslim: ignorance or is he Salafee?

We have spoken about this.  And we say in summary: The origin of the Muslim is not that he is Salafee.  We say that the origin of the Muslim is that he is Muslim.  Whosoever’s Islaam is affirmed with certainty, then it cannot be removed except with certainty.  His description that he is Salafee is a description that is additional to Islaam.  For example, when you say that so and so is trustworthy, it is not possible for him to be trustworthy and to be a non-Muslim.  So it is inescapable that he be a Muslim, because it is only after those affairs that he can be trustworthy.  Therefore, trustworthiness is a description that is additional to Islaam.  And this requires knowledge and experience concerning one’s condition in order to describe him as being trustworthy.  Likewise, describing someone as Salafee requires knowledge and experience with him and a commendation (tazkiyah) and the likes of that for it to be said that he is Salafee.  This is a summary.  However, when we say that he is a Muslim, does this raise from him the sphere of ignorance?  No, he is Muslim, but he is ignorant and unknown.  So here, the speech concerning him is not to revile him, but it is because his trustworthiness and his description with Salafiyyah has not been ascertained.

Many of them revolve around this: The origin concerning the Muslims is that they are Ahlus-Sunnah, or the origin concerning the Muslims is that they are trustworthy.  Such are the principles that they formulate concerning the Muslims, principles that have no halter and no rein.  And after research, we do not find that the Scholars behave in such a manner.  Why do they take Imaam Ibn Hibbaan (d.354H) – rahimahullaah – and describe him as mutasaahil (lenient) in the issue of ta’deel (praise)?  Because the basic principle according to him was that the origin of the Muslim, about whom no jarh (criticism) is confirmed, is al-’adl (trustworthiness).  He is trustworthy.  And due to this, they said that Ibn Hibbaan was lenient and his lenience is well known; this is an established principle.

“How lenient was al-Bustee in his book!  Rather, his condition was easy and insignificant, so it was fulfilled.” [7]

The Second Doubt: Does the manhaj enter into the ’aqeedah, or does the ’aqeedah enter into the manhaj, or are they two separate things?

We have also answered this repeatedly and time and time again.  I say to you: In summary, are a Sunnee Muslim upon the correct path?  You will say: Of course!  Do you testify that there is none worthy of worship besides Allaah and do you fulfill its pre-requisites?  And do you testify that Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) is the Messenger of Allaah and do you fulfill those pre-requisites?  Sound creed (’aqeedah) necessitates a sound methodology (manhaj).

You cannot say: I am Salafee in ’aqeedah, Ikhwaanee in manhaj.  You cannot say you are a Salafee in ’aqeedah, Hussaafee in tareeqah, Salafee in ’aqeedah.  This is of no benefit.

This is combining between two polar opposites.  And there occurred in the previous question that some of them said, ‘He is Salafee, but closer to the Ikhwaan, or Salafee, but closer to I don’t know what.’  Sound creed definitely and clearly necessitates that you are upon the correct minhaaj.  Morning and evening must pass whilst you are upon their minhaaj, as Imaam al-Hasan al-Basree (d.110H) stated. [8]

[1]: Refer to the audio recordings of the lessons on Sunan Aboo Daawood (no. 553) of ’Abdul-Muhsin al-’Abbaad.
[2]: Translator’s Note: Here Shaykh Rabee’ – hafidhahullaah – is referring to the statement of Shaykhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) – rahimahullaah, “As for the one who says that the origin of the Muslims is al-’adaalah (integrity), then this is falsehood.  Rather, the origin of the children of Aadam is oppression and ignorance, as Allaah the Exalted said,

But man bore it. Verily, he was unjust to himself and ignorant of its results.” [Sooratul-Ahzaab 33:72]

And merely uttering the two testimonies of faith does not necessitate that the person moves immediately from oppression and ignorance to integrity.”  Refer to Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (10/357) of Ibn Taymiyyah.
[3]: Related by Muslim (1/14) in the introduction of his Saheeh.
[4]: Related by Muslim (1/15) in the introduction of his Saheeh.
[5]: Refer to the audio recording, Liqaa‘ Ma’a Ahlil-Yaman.
[6]: Refer to Fathul-’Aliyyil-A’laa bi Sharhil-Qawaa’idil-Muthlaa (p. 352-353) of ’Ubayd al-Jaabiree.
[7]: Translator’s Note: This is a line of poetry quoted from the Alfiyyah of as-Suyootee, who mentioned that the Scholars took issue with Ibn Hibbaan’s declaration that the origin of a Muslim was trustworthiness and as such he declared a group of unknowns trustworthy.  They declared his condition that the person’s Islaam must be established an insignificant condition that was easy to fulfill.
[8]: Translator’s Note: This is an allusion to the statement of al-Hasan al-Basree, “Son of Aadam, do not be deceived by the one who says, ‘The individual will be with the one whom he loves,’ because when an individual loves a people, he follows their narrations.  And you will not be attached to the righteous, up until you follow their narrations and adopt their guidance and take their tradition (Sunnah) as an example, and morning and evening must pass whilst you are upon their minhaaj, zealous upon being with them.  So you must traverse their path and adopt their way.”  Refer to Istinshaaq Naseemil-Uns min Nafahaat Riyaadil-Quds (p. 87) of Ibn Rajab.

Translation by Maaz Qureshi