تيار ناصر الفهد وعلي الخضير | الشيخ الخليفي | مراجعات ومناصحات-27

Well, praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God, and upon his family and companions, and whoever is guided by his guidance. As for what follows:

This is the eighth episode of reviews and advice. And as usual, there are some introductions. The first introduction relates to the event happening in Tunisia, in matters from which lessons are learned, lessons are taken from it, and what is meant is not gloating or anything else.

You know that I have a series called "Chat about Al-Manar School." Then a person came to me and claimed to me that he listened to the entire series, he listened to the entire series. And by the way, listening to the series or "to the series," some of them consider it wrong, some of them consider it wrong and say that it transgresses by itself, and generally these are issues with discussion, but it seems that the matter, it seems that the matter is broad. So the witness says he listened to the entire series and then started to bring up some objections. And glory be to God, these activist currents have done wonders with people, as you always find in them something of deception. So his words meant, "Why don't we stand with these currents in what they do?" meaning, "And because the war is between secularism and you, between secularism and others, it is as if you are saying, 'Do not fight secularism.'" This is how they program people, that whoever criticizes us says, "Do not fight secularism," knowing that we only criticized the manifestations of knowledge that they have, and this is a matter I am not the first to notice. Did not Issam Al-Bashir write his message "Secularization from Within"? This is a clear matter. So this is the advice, then if I advise you on your mistakes, I have closed the door on your enemy. If you respond to my advice, then this will make you better and improved. But they always teach their followers and sympathizers this trick, always, that you come and choose and tell him, "We are better," and I discussed this in Hamad's chat, that we tell them, "We are better than others." Well, you being better than others does not mean you are infallible; perhaps you have a flaw that allows your enemy to dominate you, as was the case between the people of Kalam (theologians) and philosophy, and the people of philosophy. So Ibn Taymiyyah explained that the theologians are better than the philosophers, but the theologians had flaws that allowed the philosophers to dominate them, even though the theologians sometimes supported correct issues like the temporality of the world, so this was the discussion.

Then why are we given a choice between supporting them and remaining silent about them? Why don't we have a third option, which is to advise them, to advise them? Then why should we be followers of theirs and bear their sins? On the contrary, we clarify to people and distinguish our positions, saying such and such of what they advocate is correct, and such and such of what they advocate is wrong, and I distinguish myself from them so that I do not bear their sins. So he means to tell you, "Stand with me and bear my sins." Then if he falls due to his mistakes, his exaggerated concessions, or his extremism, or other things, and he goes and blames me, and I lose many of my gains because of him, then why would I do this in the first place?

And glory be to God, after I answered him, and I was angry, because when you explain a certain idea—and this is what happens most often with me in two topics: the topic of activism and the topic of women—you explain a certain idea, you explain it very extensively, and the objections that usually come, what do you do? You answer them and elaborate in the answer. Then someone comes to you claiming that he heard your words, or someone claiming that she heard your words, then they object to you with the very same objections that you have already answered. So here you find no answer, meaning you find no greater example than the sealing of the heart or desire; like this, you find no example that says his heart is sealed, or a person driven by desire, like this example, truly, truly, to the point that I wonder, by God, some materials I used to re-listen to because I remember to myself that I spoke about this topic, so why do they come and claim that they are new to this material, then they make you think that you did not present this matter or talk about it? And this is again the assassination of emotion by reason, meaning how emotion assassinates reason. So I refer back to the material, and glory be to God, I find that I have answered and spoken, and that this took a long time from the material, perhaps even 40% or 30% of the material was in answering this objection that came after listening to the material. And that is a habit of mine, that I always deal with the famous objections that I hear a lot, so they usually don't surprise me, because as soon as I research the issue, I see it before me; as soon as I want to prepare something on the topic, I see it before me. So the matter is not from my intelligence or shrewdness or anything like that, but this is what happens to any researcher who has a degree of seriousness; anyone who has a degree of seriousness experiences it, so this matter truly annoyed me.

So after I, truly, blocked him, because this is a sad, annoying matter, something came to my mind that I would have told him before the block about the topic of Tunisia. By God, before this coup that happened, which I don't know if it will be completed or not, but I mostly assume it will be completed, I would have told him: "Now, this is Tunisia, this country, from the da'wah (preaching) perspective, all activist currents now have a presence in Tunisia, whether the Muslim Brotherhood or the various Jihadi currents." The Muslim Brotherhood are in the government, and the Jihadi currents are present in a very large way. And personally, 90% of the takfiris (those who declare others infidels) among the people who spoke to me from Tunisia, 90% of the habitual takfiris who spoke to me from Tunisia, most of them had a history of supporting the Jihadi current, and their situations progressed. So some of them are still, for example, with Al-Alwan, following Al-Alwan's method, and some of them are following Al-Hazimi's method, and these are many, and some of them have surpassed Al-Hazimi, and these are many. As for those, for example, let's say those who follow the method of Abu Qatada, or Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, or Safar Al-Hawali, or others, these have a presence, and if they were to gather, by God, they would be a huge number. But the da'wah currents that are, I mean, excessively concerned with da'wah, and seeking knowledge—that's why I was truly happy with Al-Alwan's advice to them to seek knowledge and so on—those that have a concern for knowledge and a concern for sitting with the people and inviting them and so on, these are few. And truly, they claim that they have nothing in this regard, meaning they have no scope, but in reality, da'wah requires patience, and I have seen a lack of patience in many of them. Otherwise, how did this madhhab (school of thought) reach you? How did this madhhab reach you when you say da'wah is useless? How did this madhhab reach you? It reached you through da'wah. Well, even the Ansar al-Dawla al-Islamiyya (supporters of the Islamic State) Tunisians were very, very many, and the Brotherhood were many. I told him, "Look at this society from the perspective of religiosity. By God, yesterday I saw a post on Facebook by a Tunisian friend of mine on Facebook who says, 'Whoever sees nudity in Tunisia in the summer, says that these are people who do not believe in God and the Last Day.' Of course, this differs from Egyptian society, for example; they even differ from Algerian society, and whoever has seen it realizes this." Yes, Algerian society has different regions; Tunisia is small, Algeria is large and has different regions. There are regions whose people have this "Frenchification" and regions whose people have extreme conservatism, a well-known issue. The point of all this is that the famous preachers from Morocco, Bashir bin Al-Hassan, their secularism is clear in them, and we hardly find a good preacher or a good student of knowledge, and most of them were taken by the Jihadi arena, a person who has a da'wah at least on social media. I mean, now, for example, you find Moroccans who have YouTube channels responding to atheists or inviting to any of the schools of thought, and some of them are in France, some are in Italy, some are in such and such places. We, even Tunisians abroad, mostly, in many cases, hardly find a famous man among them.

Well, now, inside, we say there is restriction. Well, what about those who went abroad? Well, when the Muslim Brotherhood took power, why did they reach, through compromises with secularists, to legislate in inheritance something that does not exist in any other Islamic country, and they prohibited polygamy, something that does not exist in any other country? I think only Libya during Gaddafi's time had a law on this matter. And despite that, there is no scope for da'wah and influencing society. And these people come to you, the answer is Tunisia, the group of Youssef Hussein and Abdullah Al-Sharif. Is Tunisia the answer? Is Tunisia the answer? I told him, "Now, all these activist currents are present in this country with a very strong, tangible presence, and the da'wah spirit is weak, the da'wah spirit is weak." This is a good example. These countries are a good example for us to study the matter of the common people of these countries when compared to the common people of other countries, even neighboring countries. The people who have academic activities in general issues, now they only have Al-Zaytuna University. Sami Ameri, we have Sami Ameri, who is one of the Tunisians abroad, and truly he is a man who has activity and so on, and he has known observations. And even he, after the revolution, came and gave a lecture, and the mosque was full. But the general point is that Sami Ameri once published the book "Secularization from Within" on his page. I said, "If you compare, you will find the matter clear." So, truly, the answer is Tunisia. Indeed, today, after this coup that happened, we return and say again, the answer is Tunisia. And this is a matter that makes you look into what relates to da'wah policies. Your activist project is not certain, and if it was useful in a certain country due to specific circumstances, even if we claimed this, and even if this is from the perspective of speculation, then will it be beneficial in every country and every region with differing political and economic circumstances?

Now, for example, this man needed money, so he went to some countries, and these countries incited him against the groups, and he went and did it.

Well, God is the helper. The second matter, one of the brothers came to me and said, "I mean, this," and someone says, "I mean, this even criticized Sheikh Hassan Al-Abbad." I spoke about this at the beginning of the audio recordings, so I told him, "My brother, I spoke about this topic." Now, you see, every one of these currents criticizes the others, even Sheikh Abdul Mohsen himself, what he conveyed in his message "Kindness of Ahl al-Sunnah to Ahl al-Sunnah," that a scholar errs and is refuted, and is not declared an innovator or anything like that. Well, now, why don't we follow his advice, and his message, which is called "Kindness of Ahl al-Sunnah to Ahl al-Sunnah," is advice for people he considers to be from Ahl al-Sunnah?

I told him, "Now, do you understand that Ibn Hajar, Al-Nawawi, Al-Bayhaqi, so-and-so Ibn Furak, and so on, very many names, you glorify and support them and say, 'The Imam, may God have mercy on him,' and you acknowledge that most of these have doctrinal violations in serious matters, and you do not accept that what you say to others is said to you, 'You left no one,' I don't know, and so on." You see, these methods, "you left no one," "whoever remained last," these methods are activist methods, and they are more like the ridiculous arguments of secularists. So we, in fact, these are disagreements among people, there must be one of the two correct opinions in them. So in every issue, we clarify the correct aspect in the statement of one current over another. This is the first point.

The second point: the Salaf remained, and scholars remained, and these were not entirely angered. In fact, not all the contemporaries I spoke about, I am only talking about a few living individuals, very few events from the living ones who criticize each other. Glory be to God, did not Ibn Taymiyyah criticize Abu Ya'la? Indeed, did he not criticize Abu Ya'la, and Ibn Aqil, and Abu Al-Khata', and Abu Al-Khattabi, and others from the Hanbalis? Ibn Al-Jawzi from the Hanbalis, and the Tamimiyyin from the Hanbalis? No one came and said, "By God, you left no one, Ibn Taymiyyah, you criticized everyone, even Ibn Qudamah, you left no one," even though he said that these are better than the Ash'aris, better than them, and so on. While someone tells him, "You refuted the Ash'aris, and you refuted these, and so on, you refuted them, and you said that among the groups of Ahl al-Hadith, there are those who speak with ridiculous reason and weak narration, and that despite that, with his talk of ridiculous reason and weak narration, they may innovate and declare as infidels people from the prominent figures of the Ummah." This is what Ibn Taymiyyah said about groups of Ahl al-Hadith. Then he said that this flaw exists in them, it exists in every group to a greater extent. I mean, now someone comes and says, "By God, Ibn Taymiyyah left no one, he attacked everyone, he criticized everyone, right?" You don't read for Sheikh Al-Islam and say this. By God, this is a joke.

Rather, what is strange is that you find him explaining Al-Tahawiyyah, and he errs Al-Tahawi, and he errs, and he explains the commentary on Al-Tahawiyyah, and he errs the commentator on Al-Tahawiyyah in places and refutes him. Then when he explains Hadith books, he comes to the commentators of Hadith books and leaves no one among them without disagreeing with him. Then if he explained the books of Sunnah, he erred all the imams who spoke about Abu Hanifa, all of them without exception, he erred all of them and erred those who narrated it. If we assume that the narrations are not authentic, then Abdullah bin Ahmad is mistaken, and Al-Bukhari is mistaken, and Al-Uqaili is mistaken, who narrated these reports and narrated nothing else. Then some of them come and err those who adopted the narration of Mujahid. Then some of them come and err those who were harsh on the Ash'aris, such as Ibn Ismail Al-Ansari and others. Then they err, then they err Al-Dhahabi in well-known issues, then they err the Ash'aris and those who advocate for "good innovation" and so on. And you find them, despite their erring many of these, saying, "The Imam, may God have mercy on him," and so on. But if you come and err him in matters that are less significant than these matters in which he errs others, people get angry, their noses turn red, and they say, "This person is slandering the sheikhs, my brother, by your own standard!"

Even Sheikh Abdul Mohsen, when he wrote "Kindness of Ahl al-Sunnah to Ahl al-Sunnah," you see he was criticizing Al-Najmi, Al-Madkhali, Ubaid Al-Jabiri, and Falih Al-Harbi. These four, let's say the first three, are generally revered. Abdul Mohsen Al-Abbad is revered. Meaning, accusing these of extremism is an accusation against all those who revere the Sheikh, those who love and glorify him, most of whom belong to the current of these individuals. As for other currents, they do not care about him and consider him a Jam'i, except for a few of their describers. Even Nasser Al-Aql, when he spoke, said, "Among the wise ones of the Jam'iyyah, Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Abbas, they consider him a Jam'i." The only group that criticizes these and praises Sheikh Abdul Mohsen are the group of Ali Hassan Al-Halabi and Al-Ma'ribi and others. And these, the Sheikh himself knows that the Permanent Committee and senior scholars issued fatwas concerning them, and fatwas were issued against them. And I think Sheikh Abdul Mohsen, I mean, Al-Halabi used to quote him as criticizing the Permanent Committee for issuing fatwas concerning them. So even the Permanent Committee is subject to criticism.

And this Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz, in his tape "Al-Baziyyah Batch," attributed to his Sheikh Ibn Ibrahim a contradiction of what is correct in the interpretation of the verse of judgment, rather he used to say "the consensus of the Salaf, the consensus of the Salaf." So this Sheikh Baz followed up on his Sheikh Ibn Ibrahim. You see, these are our Salafi environments, these are our environments, and these are environments. And in fact, this is considered one of the virtues of the Salafi da'wah, not one of its flaws at all.

And this Sheikh Abbas said that Al-Dhahabi is not among the people of insight in creed, and he said such and such, and he said something great, and his words, I mean, all of this, I mean, his words, some of it is true and some of it is very valid, all indicating knowledge. The issue today, the biggest formidable obstacle to true knowledge, is the glorification of sheikhs in a manner outside the customary Salafi limit. For your appreciation of a scholar and your knowledge of his virtue does not equate to establishing a dispute between him and those who are greater than him, and saying, "No, I mean, I don't accept," or if it's a matter of disagreement, you only imitate him because he is so-and-so, son of so-and-so. Rather, there must be evidence with him in his words. And this is what Sheikh Abdul Mohsen taught when he responded to Al-Rifa'i and Al-Bouti, telling them, "We are not fanatical towards anyone, and we respond to everyone in matters where they err." And also, many contemporaries have erred Sheikh Al-Islam in matters, so the issue is settled, meaning it has nothing to do with the claim that a scholar is either a "superman" with no violations or the most severe of heretics.

This is the trick that the activists resorted to in order to defend, in order to dilute the creed. So they come and portray to you that the Jahmi's error is like the Murji's error – I wish! Rather, they make the Jahmi, whose error is greater than the Qadari's error, and the Qadari, whose error is greater than the Murji's error, and the Murji, whose error is greater than the favored Shi'i's error, that all of these, their error is like the error of the Sunni Salafi scholar who supported the Sunnah and Salafism in every way, and then made mistakes in some matters. So they make all of this, they make all of this one door. And by God, this is opening the door to extremism or the door to alienation wide open. And this is what happened among the youth, and this is clearly observed in them.

Today's episode is about Nasser bin Hamad Al-Fahd, Nasser bin Hamad Al-Fahd, and Ali Al-Khudair. Some people might think that these are like Al-Maqdisi's method, and some people might think that they are like Abu Qatada's method, and some people might think that they are like Al-Alwan's method, and some people might think that they are like Safar Al-Hawali's method. And the reality is that indeed, some people might think he is like Sayyid Imam's method. And the reality is that their method indeed has proximity to these. So all of these are close to them, but these have their scientific distinction and their distinction in production. In the name of God, they have distinction in scientific dissertations, in scientific output, in opinions and research, and they have their special mark on students of knowledge.

And some people might think, when they read the words of Khudayf Al-Udhri bin Jahal, that it is according to Ahmad Al-Hasimi's method. And the reality is that they are a special school or a special current, even if they have sympathies with certain other currents more than others, and intersections more than others, as we explained, for example, in the currents of those they call Madakhilah or Jamiyyah or other such.

Nasser bin Hamad Al-Fahd is a man of a flowing pen, and truly he is a serious researcher, a serious researcher. And truly, I speak about him, and my heart is pained. I have benefited greatly from this man. I say this and acknowledge it. I say this word while the man is imprisoned and has a large audience. This word, I should have also said it about Abdul Aziz Al-Ra'is, that I truly benefited greatly from him. And by God, I do not say this to show that I am moderate and that everyone is equal to me; this is not true. But I speak from a scientific perspective. I am a student of knowledge, so I research in jurisprudence, in principles, in Hadith, and in creed in many issues. So you find some researchers, may God reward them well, who select for you some encounters, some narrations, they clarify some issues. You always have an issue where you have gathered a collection, and something was missing, and a certain thing was missing, then you find this researcher brings you that thing.

Nasser Fahd has serious writings, among the most important of which is his book "Maintenance of Majmu' al-Fatawa from Distortion and Error." In this book, he drew attention to many distortions in the collection of fatwas published by Ibn Qasim, and he also pointed out and warned about treatises that he believes are not authentically attributed to Sheikh Al-Islam, and that is Salma this year. Yes, there are those who disagree with him on a number of fatwas, and I personally disagreed with him on some fatwas whose attribution to the Sheikh he denied, and the reality is that it is clear that they are the Sheikh's words, but he opened this door. And indeed, Ibn Taymiyyah, during his lifetime, Ibn Al-Qayyim mentioned that a fatwa on love was attributed to him but was not his, to the extent that you find those who published "Jami' al-Masail" printed Ibn Taymiyyah's fatwa on love and then retracted it. You sometimes find some researchers, like in the treatise "Al-Tanbih al-Rajul al-Aqil" (Warning to the Rational Man), a long discussion occurred between its verifiers and Al-Daghsh Al-Ajami regarding its attribution to Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad Al Abdul Latif, in his book "Taymiyyat Taymiyyat," pointed out that the last part of "Al-Iman Al-Awsat" (The Middle Creed) is not his, "Al-Nubuwwat" (Prophecies). When it was first printed, they used to ask Sheikh Abdul Razzaq Afifi, and I heard him on a recorded tape that I had, he used to say that the style is the Sheikh's style, even if there were strange parts that didn't resemble it, as if it wasn't his, but the overall style is the Sheikh's. And Ibn Taymiyyah, during his lifetime, sometimes tampered with his works, and sometimes some works were compiled and so on. I mean, there are things that do not resemble his style, and Nasser Al-Fahd has done well by opening this door. And truly, these are the efforts I mentioned, but there are other efforts, even, and there is, I mean, a detailed discussion in Al-Hamawiyyah. When I mentioned Al-Hamawiyyah to Sheikh Baz, he said, "I don't think these words are the Sheikh's." And glory be to God, some verifiers investigated the words and found that they were additions by some people, and that era was an era, I mean, with manipulations. Even Al-Subki complained that some people deleted Al-Nawawi's words regarding the interpretation of attributes. But this does not invalidate. Some people tell you, "My brother, this invalidates the consideration or invalidates the credibility of the works." We say this is not correct. But if you find a report that contradicts the general reports of the man, it contradicts and cannot be reconciled at all, then you might doubt between this report and that report. So he might have two opinions on the matter; this is not far-fetched. But also, this precise verification is one of the merits of what is called contemporary Salafism in our time. So, truly, the scientific efforts that have been made in serving the Sheikh's heritage and in clarifying what belongs to him and what does not, and the scientific discussions, even if they are somewhat sharp, these scientific discussions are a type of, this is a form of scientific progress and expansion from which many students of knowledge have benefited greatly. And truly, progress in the craft of verification and the verification of issues is a great thing.

So this treatise, this man's name emerged through it, and he demonstrated seriousness in research at a young age. And he has another treatise on tadlis (concealment of defects) in the chapter of tadlis in Hadith. And I have explained to you earlier the efforts of what is called contemporary Salafism in the chapter of Hadith, significant efforts that were issued by many researchers, and among these efforts was this research. So it was Nasser Al-Fahd's dissertation, which Al-Alwan later adopted, and I don't know who benefited from whom, but Nasser Al-Fahd is the one who authored the book, and all of them were in Al-Qassim, so it is not unlikely that they benefited. It could be discussions among dissertation students, this one gives an idea and that one gives an idea, then one writes a book about it: that the issue of 'ilal (defectiveness) due to tadlis found among later scholars in this form is not according to the methodology of early scholars. Many people rely on Ibn Hajar's words regarding 'ilal due to tadlis in the third category, those whom Ibn Hajar placed in the third category. I mean, among the things that make one laugh and cry is his mention of Al-Zuhri in this category, and he himself, Ibn Hajar himself, was inconsistent on this issue, so he mentioned Al-Zuhri once in the second and once in the third. The third is not accepted unless he explicitly states it; the second is not accepted by 'an'anah (reporting with 'on the authority of') only. So Ibn Hajar clarified the principle: not everyone who is accused of tadlis and reported with 'an'anah is called a mudallis whose narration is not accepted unless he explicitly states it. And the big discussion was about the three great mountains who are Qatadah, Al-A'mash, and Abu Ishaq Al-Subai'i. So he clarified and championed that their narrations should be accepted absolutely unless they sent a hidden mursal (a narration where the chain of narrators is broken at the companion level), and that hidden mursal is called tadlis. And from here, the 'ilalat (defects) that occurred from some imams were not in the chapter of tadlis but in the chapter of hidden mursal. So hidden mursal is to narrate from a sheikh from whom he did not hear at all, even if he was his contemporary. As for tadlis, it is to narrate from a sheikh from whom he heard, possibly heard from him, but he did not hear this specific Hadith from him or by 'an'anah. And he mentioned rules and matters, such as if he was a sheikh, if he was constantly with his sheikh, then his 'an'anah is not considered defective, and so on. And the treatise contains this. And among the people, some discussed them, like the author of "Naqd Mujazafat Al-Banbari," and he said that Al-Shafi'i criticizes the issue of defectiveness due to tadlis. But truly, the idea in its origin is that Ibn Hajar's foundational principles are questionable. This, even Al-Albani himself, in his book "Al-Nasiha," when he responded to Hassan Abdul Mannan, said that declaring Qatadah's 'an'anah defective is wrong. And Al-Albani had a contradiction, so you find, for example, he would pause at Abu Ishaq Al-Subai'i's 'an'anah, who is in the third category, and he would pass Qatadah's and Al-A'mash's 'an'anah, even sometimes passing their 'an'anah in hidden mursal. So this was among Al-Albani's inconsistencies, and this is good. Sheikh Hammad Al-Ansari wrote a treatise on the mudallisin (those who practice tadlis). Abdul Razzaq Al-Shaj, who has rules for accepting the 'an'anah of the mudallis, wrote treatises on the mudallisin. Narrations of mudallisin in the Sahihayn, treatises were written on this. Sheikh Hammad Al-Ansari, as I told you, wrote a treatise. I think Sheikh Hammad Al-Ansari, the academic environment moved very significantly in this context, and Ibrahim Al-Lahim and Hatem Al-Awni, in his treatise "Al-Mursal Al-Khafi" (The Hidden Mursal), benefited greatly from this dissertation, the inclination towards hidden mursal. And Al-Hasan Al-Basri benefited greatly from this dissertation and dedicated it to defending Al-Hasan Al-Basri and refuting those who declare his 'an'anah defective in his doctoral and master's thesis, I don't remember which one, which is "Al-Mursal Al-Khafi and its Relationship to Tadlis: Narrations of Al-Hasan Al-Basri as a Model." Notice this leap in what is called contemporary Salafism, truly, truly, on this topic, to the point that precise discussions arose regarding Al-Walid bin Muslim, for example. Now, for example, Madkhali has a treatise on Al-Walid bin Muslim, refuting Al-Ansari, the verifier of "Dhamm al-Kalam" by Al-Harawi. Abu Al-Hasan Al-Sulaimani Al-Murabbi asked Al-Albani a question and said, "Al-Albani, why do you not declare Abu Al-Lahiyah's 'an'anah defective, even though Ibn Hajar mentioned him in the sixth category, meaning not the third?" So Al-Albani said, "Because Ibn Hajar himself does not declare his 'an'anah defective," knowing that Ibn Hajar himself does declare his 'an'anah defective, and Al-Albani was mistaken, and this was a strong obligation from Al-Sulaimani to Al-Albani. And originally, they spoke about Abu Al-Lahiyah that his narrations from Amr bin Shu'aib are narrated from a matruk (abandoned narrator), and Al-Albani used to strengthen these narrations that Abu Al-Lahiyah narrates by 'an'anah from matrukin with corroborating evidence and follow-ups.

Well, Nasser Al-Fahd wrote a treatise, a treatise in this field. And you notice that the first treatise is related to Taymiyyah and doctrinal issues, and the second treatise is related to Hadith. This indicates that you are before a student of knowledge who has diversity, who has insight, and the topic is sensitive. He started with a book in this chapter, and then many writings appeared, either supporting, or discussing, or restricting, or generalizing. But the main point, the main point that people knew, is that Ibn Hajar's classification in the categories of mudallisin cannot be relied upon, and that it is a disturbed classification, especially the issue of Al-Zuhri. And I myself have writings such as "The Innocence of Imam Al-Zuhri from the Accusation of Tadlis" and "The Innocence of Tawus from the Accusation of Tadlis," because some people adopted the wrong methodology in tadlis and started to weaken his hadiths in the Sahihayn. And this is what Nasser Al-Fahd feared, and it has happened, and we have stood up to these people, knowing that my acquaintance with Nasser Al-Fahd's treatise is old, and I don't remember reading it completely, but I read discussions about it in the Ahl al-Hadith forum. As for the other treatises I mentioned, I read all of them, I read all of them, I read all of them.

Well, this is his second treatise. He has a third treatise on the doctrinal errors found in Al-I'tisam and Al-Muwafaqat by Al-Shatibi. Al-I'tisam by Al-Shatibi is a book that Salafis cared for more than Ash'aris. Why? Because Al-Shatibi, even though he was Ash'ari in himself, and some claimed he was Salafi, even though he was Ash'ari, this book took material from "Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim" in the chapter of innovation and in clarifying the evidence for the invalidity of analysis, then he greatly expanded it according to the Maliki heritage, so it became a concentrated and strong material in refuting the idea of "good innovation," which was one of the long chapters of debate and discussion between Salafism and Sufism, and they include the topic of Mawlid under it. And with this, many treatises were written, and Al-Albani was among the most frequent to discuss with the Sufis on these matters and refute them, he and his students. And truly, we cannot deny the effort of this man and his students in refuting the doubts of the Sufis who advocate for "good innovation." And I have treatises on this topic, among the most important of which is my treatise or article "The Companions' Rejection of Additive Innovations." They always discuss additive innovation, which is something that has an origin in Sharia, then they come up with specific modalities for it. And I had benefited from Al-Albani some narrations in this chapter, then during my collection of the Companions' narrations and my review of books, I began to collect what was in the manner that Al-Albani guided me to, until I gathered a large number of narrations. I collected them and showed that the Companions rejected matters less than what Salafism rejects today. And I also collected the rejections of the recognized jurisprudential schools of thought, and in articles, some of them were lost. And this also, we can consider it among the merits of da'wah. But Al-Albani and his students were not alone in this chapter, nor were they unique in this chapter. But truly, the witness was, and for this reason, they had a concern for the book Al-I'tisam and books like "Bida' Ibn Waddah," "Al-Ba'ith" by Abu Hisham Al-Maqdisi, "Bida'' by Al-Turtushi. Some of these books were authored by Ash'aris, but despite being Ash'ari, he refutes the later Ash'aris who almost universally apply the concept of "good innovation."

Yes, Al-Albani and his students had a flaw in denying matters established from the Salaf and declaring them innovations. But this is not a new matter, for some imams denied matters and declared them innovations, even though they were originally established among the Salaf. But what is new is that you sometimes deny matters that are very prevalent and widespread among later scholars, with little research and expansion, such as the claim that increasing beyond 11 rak'ahs is an innovation or such. These are the wrong matters that Salafis discussed before others. So Al-I'tisam by Al-Shatibi and Al-Muwafaqat are books that received attention, and many students of knowledge used to look into them at a young age or in their beginnings, because they discuss with the Sufis and are influenced by some of Al-Shatibi's problems. For example, Al-Shatibi's problem in rational beautification and uglification, that reason neither beautifies nor uglifies. I found Salim Al-Hilali following him, and Al-Jizani following him, even though this is the Ash'ari madhhab, and Al-Radwani follows him, and many other names. Also, Al-Shatibi establishes the Ash'ari madhhab regarding burdening with what is beyond capacity, so we find a doctor in creed like Ibrahim Ruhaili quoting his words without commenting on them at all. From here also appeared what Nasser Al-Fahd, may God reward him well, did when he authored a book, but in the manner of contemporaries, "this does not diminish his status," and he brings you many doctrinal errors, then tells you, "this does not diminish his status." I don't know if he used this exact phrase or not, but the point is that he criticized Al-Shatibi in several doctrinal issues and clarified the flaw in this man regarding these issues.

Well, with, I mean, with his book having benefit, Al-Shatibi, by the way, came after Ibn Taymiyyah. Al-Shatibi came after Ibn Taymiyyah, huh? Good. May God protect you after that. And that's why I always say that Al-Shatibi's Ash'arism is extinct; there is no Ash'ari now following Al-Shatibi's method.

Also, he has research on reading the Quran for the ritually impure and others, where he was not correct, he did not rely on narrations and so on. He has research on clapping or something else, I don't remember, or huh? And he also has research, a refutation of Al-Qaradawi when the Taliban destroyed the idols, Buddhist idols, and Al-Qaradawi began to cite evidence for the permissibility of this and tells you about the pyramids and so on. And Nasser Al-Fahd collected in that a collection that is truly considered unique, and he toiled in this matter with an effort that deserves the utmost appreciation from my side. I don't know about other people's side, they have a connection even to the doubt about the pyramids and that the Companions did not remove them. He answered this doubt with a very good response.

Also, when Hassan Farhan Al-Maliki appeared and his problems emerged, he wrote a book in refutation of him. And all currents affiliated with the Salaf, like fish, responded to the doubts of Hassan Farhan Ibn Farhan Al-Maliki. These are his works that did not enrich debate. Among the strongest works that sparked debate is his treatise "Al-Tibyan on the Kufr of Whoever Aids America." In this treatise, he went to the extent that even espionage is major kufr (disbelief). And refutations were written against him, and he tried to respond to those who refuted him. And truly, among the most famous who refuted him was Bandar Muhyani. And truly, the correct position on the issue of espionage and absolute aid was with his opponents. And even Hatem Al-Awni, in his treatise "Al-Wala' wal-Bara'' (Loyalty and Disavowal), rejoiced at this point, and that, I mean, not killing the spy, Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly stated this, and that he is not killed except as a deterrent punishment, so the proof that he is not a disbeliever is in the books of Sunan, the chapter on the Muslim spy. So he rejoiced at this issue to accuse the opposing parties of extremism and expanded on this issue, and Hatem refuted them with strong refutations, which are essentially their own refutations of each other.

So from here, I mean, it appeared, yes, and he also has his book stating that most of those called "builders of Islamic civilization" are disbelievers. And this article, which you always find widespread on atheist websites, says Ibn Sina is a disbeliever, Al-Farabi is a disbeliever, Al-Sharif Al-Idrisi is a disbeliever, and he brings up matters or atheists. And truly, truly, I responded in an article "Secular Superstitions," refuting the secularists' reliance on this talk, and I wrote an article called "They Are Not Atheists As You Think," and I clarified that these people were originally believers in the existence of God in some form, and many of them were committed to Sharia and under the rule of Sharia. So consequently, the issue remains within the context that scholars did not criticize their medicine or anything else. The next matter is that there are doctors, and there are virtuous people, and there are, I mean, no one spoke about their creed in any way. And I also explained this and clarified that Nasser Fahd's method contains exaggeration and dramatization, and I mentioned many names in this context. Then I also pointed out, and warned some brothers, that the issue of declaring Al-Sharif Al-Idrisi a disbeliever because he gifted a book to a disbelieving king, this is takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) in a context other than takfir itself. This is takfir in a context other than takfir, it has no relation. But he is creating a shock, and what is supposed is that you discuss the topic in depth: what does civilization mean, and what does such and such mean, and why is this matter placed above monotheism, and why is its origin humanistic philosophy, and why is its origin making the end a means and the means an end? But he truly did not discuss the matter as he should have, rather he only started to shock people that "these people who tell you they are such and such are disbelievers, heretics, such and such, and scholars declared them disbelievers." So it later became a famous doubt among secularists, even Hassan Farhan Al-Maliki uses it and says, "You Salafis declared everyone a disbeliever." I even responded to him and told him, "No one declared Ibn Al-Nafis a disbeliever," and I mentioned the names, then I told him, "You see, among the names you mentioned, there is no Mu'tazili, no Ash'ari, and no Imam." Yes, God is the helper.

Yes, the point is that he also compiled on the takfir of the Ottoman Empire, and this, of course, is not objected to by people like Abu Qatada and others, and that, of course, he is a tyrannical ruler, and he relied on the words of the Imams of Da'wah. And many people were annoyed by this writing of his, even from within his own current. And I have a writing in which I brought matters related to the history of the Ottoman Empire, the Sublime State, in their tendency towards secularization from a long time ago, and their support for Westernization. And I think that this will have a greater impact on people's souls than bringing them the words of the Imams of Da'wah, because the Imams of Da'wah are opponents, and some people actually use this as an indictment of the Imams of Da'wah. But when you come and say that these people had Westernization, and they had leniency with disbelievers, and they had, and they had, and they had many things, and the issue of killing their brothers, and the issue of such and such, and so on, and the confessions of some Hanafi scholars and some other scholars, this has a greater impact. And I brought the words of Ahmad Al-Ghumari, the Sheikh of the Shadhili path, in condemning the Ottoman Empire and claiming that it apostatized in its last era. And I also brought the words of Al-Nabulsi that whoever says about the Imam, about the Ottoman ruler, that he is just, then he is a disbeliever, and so on. God is the helper.

Well, Nasser Al-Fahd, I mean, these are his general writings, then the last thing issued by him are the Al-Ha'ir fatwas from Al-Ha'ir prison. As for Ali Khudair, he became famous for his commentaries on Hadith and Sunnah books, excuse me, on the books of the Imams of Da'wah. And he is the one who became famous for strongly advocating the view of no excuse for ignorance, even though his publication and explanation of the view is not entirely precise, but in the end he started trying. Of course, he doesn't understand the philosophy of evidentiary equivalence and so on, so he started refuting and compiling. And even the one named Ahmad Al-Sayyid, who is currently famous, once wrote his research on the excuse of ignorance, and he came with Ali Khudair's statement that the issue is one of disagreement, and then he left the rest of Ali Khudair's words that the Salaf did not excuse ignorance, he left the rest of his words. But he obtained the matter in the monotheism of divinity in shirk (polytheism), and we will have words, words from him will come. And he has some strange choices, his inclination to absolutely curse visiting the Prophet's grave, the chapter of blocking the means, and he does not declare the excuser a disbeliever, and a fatwa was issued for him on this, as I recall. But he has research on the topic of excuse for ignorance, but on the topic of Jahmiyyah, he elaborates at length. Its reading will come for consideration, and truly it contains extreme strangeness.

But in the chapter of the monotheism of divinity, he pointed out that there was a disagreement regarding the declaration of Ash'aris as disbelievers. And here, a sharp pause. Even now, he said there is a disagreement, and Al-Alwan said there is a disagreement, and Abu Qatada told him, "This is the saying of the Khawarij," and Al-Hawali said that the Ash'aris contradicted Ahl al-Sunnah in everything except in the matter of the Companions.

Well, and Nasser Al-Fahd said about the Ash'aris in the Al-Ha'ir fatwas that their saying is major kufr, and that they are the Jahmiyyah, there is no debate at all, he clarified. But he said that in later times, perhaps due to widespread ignorance, they are excused. What is the later era? According to their classification, approximately from Al-Juwayni to our time, meaning most of the Ash'ari age, nine centuries, and the argument is established against the Ash'aris. And this is a problem in understanding the excuse of ignorance in an activist way, that the excuse of ignorance almost nullifies the ruling, the excuse of ignorance almost completely removes the ruling, and is not merely a temporary condition that is present in some people and not in others. So Ibn Taymiyyah himself said if...

I said, "I will tell you, you have disbelieved," and he said to them, "And some of them have disbelieved in person, and he is Ibn Taymiyyah himself, who, when he came to decide the issue of excusing some of the Jahmiyyah, stated that in the same time and in the same place, he disbelieved the Jahmiyyah, a great disbelief, to establish the proof against them. So there is no such thing as a complete time for the Quran, for the Sunnah, for the scholars to be able to establish the proof against anyone. This is a concept of extreme wonder, and the reality of its story is sufficient to refute it, because if you reach, if you reach this, then we will come to the advice and explain it further, God willing. Nasser Al-Fahd and Ali Khudeir, their words, for example, regarding the Ottoman state and the issue of polytheism and not excusing ignorance in the chapter of monotheism, have made them creedal. Now, what is the difference between him and the group of Al-Hathimi? They do not disbelieve the doer. Well, maybe they do not disbelieve the Ash'ari Jahmiyyah with detail. Well, what is the difference between them and the group of Al-Alwani? They do not excuse ignorance. Al-Alwani excuses or is excused for ignorance, and the narrations from him are different in this regard, but he does not make this issue a consensus of the Salaf. As for the issue of the Ash'aris, they do not make detailed distinctions, and they are, meaning, in the issue of loyalty and so on, even if their saying is one. What is the difference between him and the group of Al-Hawali? This is the issue of excuse and so on, and the disbelief of the Ottoman state, and so on. What is the difference between them and the group of Abu Qatadah and Al-Maqdisi? It is clear, indeed, it is clear, especially when you read Jannat Al-Mutayyabin, you find a difference. >> But the jihadist current celebrated them, and despite their extreme creedalism, Nasser Al-Fahd praised the Taliban greatly. And Al-Kharashi informed me, forgive me, I will mention his name, I will mention a narration that he spoke to Suleiman Al-Fahd about the Maturidis of the Taliban, so he tried to deny it, and so on. Very many supporters of the jihadist current, their matter is strange. You find them denying obvious realities, denying them out of emotion. And I used to think this was among the young ones, until among the elders. So he said to him, "My brother, they explain Al-Tahawi." So he said to him, "O Sheikh Nasser, you, like you, do not say this. Most of the explanations of Al-Tahawi are in the market, explanations that do not lead to guidance. And for your information, the Taliban are Deobandi, and these Deobandis differ from the Barelvis. These Deobandis, to be precise, are an extension of the state of Sheikh Sirhindi. This Sirhindi, who is called the renewer of the second millennium, this man, you might read his words and think they are like Muhammad, and they have counted him in denying polytheistic acts and other things, then you find him entering the matter from the door of Sufism, and he was the first to start the story of pledging allegiance on four Sufi orders together. So he had a way of thinking, and this is what the Tablighi group took. And this is because the idea of sectarian tolerance spread in India a long time ago. So he called for unity among the Sufis. Sirhindi was the first to call for it. Muhammad Ilyas, the leader of Tablighi Jamaat, was not the first person. The first person in this is a mistake. Then Sirhindi's student was Waliullah Dehlawi, who was considered the head of the people of hadith. Waliullah Dehlawi also had an idea. If you read him, you will find him defending his daughter and Ibn Arabi, saying, "That is a generation that has passed; it has what it has." So you wonder how he combines opposites and how his thinking resembles the thinking of the Brotherhood in some aspects of the issue of tolerance with contradictory parties. This is what people love in our time. But your wonder will disappear if you know that the idea of religious tolerance spread in India before any other place, by the hands of their secular sultans who spread secularism, even stronger than Europe. Sultans claiming to be from Islam, and this was influenced by their Tatar origins, by their Tatar origins. And we have explained in full what happened before regarding the Tatars and sectarian tolerance and other things, and that one of them does not deny the other, and the most important thing is their common worldly interests. Then the Deobandis separated, of course. Waliullah Dehlawi, the greatness of the Deobandis, notice their greatness, even though he was not 100% on their path, but his origins resemble their origins. He was a man who grew up in the Naqshbandi Sufi tradition, and so on. Then the people of hadith distinguished themselves from the Deobandis, and they all venerate Waliullah Dehlawi. As for the Barelvis, they have completely deviated. The Barelvis are the most polytheistic people, and they are all Naqshbandi, they and the Deobandis. And there is a sect called the Fanjfiri, and they are few, and these deny polytheism just as the Salafis deny it completely. And these are among the Deobandis or among the, what is his name, but they are pure Jahmiyyah, but they are pure Jahmiyyah. The Deobandis always find them denying, you find some of them denying seeking help, but they do not deny the Sufi intercessions from the saints, which is, for example, sitting in a room and seeking help from the dead. As for the pleas of the common people, they are rejected by them. As for the requests of the elite, they are accepted by them. They have subtle doctrines and they have evasions. For this reason, the Barelvis claimed, the Barelvis attacked the Deobandis from two angles. They claimed against them that they were Wahhabis, so they wrote a book called "Al-Muhand ala Al-Mufannad," meaning they defended themselves and supported some polytheistic acts while denying other polytheistic acts. Well, and some Barelvis went to the early Deobandis and brought them polytheistic acts of the same kind that the Barelvis deny them, and said, "Your ancestors were originally like us in some issues." And this is true. And you find them venerating their ancestors while denying some matters. For this reason, the Deobandis might be thought by some people to be exactly 100% like the monotheists in some places, and they have manipulations and evasions in this regard. And from here, some people come and defend the students in some issues, and the reality is that they are Deobandi. The reality is that they are Maturidi without discussion, without discussion. And the call in Maturidi proves transcendence. This is nonsense. There is no Maturidi that proves transcendence. Well, so the point is that Nasser Al-Fahd and Ali Al-Khudeir went out with Ayed Al-Qarni in a meeting sponsored by the state, retracting some of their statements that indeed appeared weak to them. Their criticisms were like matters related to hearing and obeying. And indeed, indeed, Nasser was from Al-Fahd, indeed, he was scientifically retracting because in an issue, they brought him the consensus of Ibn Al-Mundhir, so he retracted. This student of knowledge got something, so they rejoiced. When he said, "If it comes," they went out on television directly. He was in prison or something, so some people came and brought him evidence, and this can happen even outside of prison. You might hold an opinion, and someone comes to you with evidence, and this is a common occurrence in scholarly circles. So they rejoiced, so he retracted. So they went out on television and retracted their extremist ideology by exaggeration. This is a retraction of their extremist ideology. Then Nasser bin Al-Fahd, when he wrote Al-Tibyan and others, was imprisoned. But this meeting caused him to lose many of his admirers or many of those who respected him. And it made many of his peers afraid to return if some opinions appeared wrong to them, lest people mock them or attack them. And perhaps this is one of the reasons for the veneration of Al-Alwani over Nasser Al-Fahd, even though, personally, from a scholarly perspective, I benefited more from Nasser Al-Fahd. And so that some people do not think that when I talk about some individuals, I have a personal problem with them, or that I am trying to vent my anger at their movement or anything else. No, by God, I repeat and reiterate, by God, you will not find anyone who speaks about the efforts of his opponents or the scientific Salafi movements like me. You will not find anyone who says, "This one did this, and he wrote such and such, and his writing is good, and so on," and then later criticizes him. By God, you will not find this in the arena at all. You will not find it at all. Some of them, to appear fair, mention good and bad. If they mention the good of their opponents, they are detailed. If they mention the good of those who agree with them, they are detailed. And if they mention their bad deeds, they are general. But when it comes to the opposite for an opponent, if they mention his good deeds, they are general, perhaps even generally, in a way that diminishes great efforts. So some who appear intelligent or some who have some efforts in scholarly matters, and you find these efforts to be very great, and when they talk about their bad deeds, they are detailed. And this is one of the forms of pervasive desire, which was fueled by the filthy activism. As for what we are in, what you are hearing, you will never hear it from another party. By God, you will not hear it at all. And because I truly, truly want good for these people, by my veneration of the creed and the Salafi common ground between me and them. So here an issue occurred, but he was later imprisoned. Then he supported the events of September 11th and began to derive legal rulings from them. And I think Al-Hawali also did this. And Sa'd Al-Faqih prepared his research to permit what happened on September 11th. And Al-Zawahiri cited the words of Nasser Al-Fahd. And "Yassir Sayyid Imam responded to Nasser Al-Fahd," for your information. I was contacted by someone a long time ago in 2013 or 2014, and he was in the القاعده camps on Gmail, and he told me that the books of Nasser Al-Fahd and Ali Khudeir were banned, and I do not doubt this at all. He said, and the books of Al-Mas'ari were not a problem, and I do not doubt this at all, at all. Because the level of creedalism in their books, from my experience with activists, is that it is not acceptable. The issue of disbelieving in the worship of other than God and saying that ignorance is excusable is a weak difference of opinion, and that there is a consensus that ignorance is not excusable. This is even if you support their movement, and you pledge allegiance to them, and so on. Even Nasser Al-Fahd used to say, he praised Mullah Muhammad Omar and used to say, "I wished I had a car bomb to blow myself up against the enemies, against the enemies of religion," and other phrases. But you do not find most of these people liking this approach at all, at all, at all. Especially after Al-Zawahiri showed that the common people of the Rafidah are excused, and so on. They do not like this approach and consider it a destructive and dangerous approach. And because they, meaning, hope for union with some of the grave-worshippers in the war against the Americans or in the war, they hope for that. And based on that, they consider your approach corrupt, even though if you come to them and say, "How do you agree with the grave-worshippers and others?" they will say to you, "My brother, Ibn Taymiyyah fought with the people." Of course, we have answered this and explained Ibn Taymiyyah's words. But did Ibn Taymiyyah remain silent about explaining his issues? So Fahd and Ali Khudeir did the same thing, meaning, we explain the issues and explain the matters, but necessity forced us into a kind of cooperation. God is the one we seek help from. But their story is a story. And they used to think that some young people who studied the works of these people would end up like this. This is what was thought. And I saw a statement from the Islamic State group warning against circulating the books of the two men, even though this man, meaning, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group, and wrote a letter to that effect. And they mentioned some strange observations about him. One of them, Ali Khudeir, for example, does not disbelieve the Al Saud, or I don't know. I saw the statement, I don't remember it for you, but glory be to God, when I read it, I was amazed. There were the names of several well-known sheikhs of the jihadist movement, and they said, "These people, we warn against circulating their books, and we have observations about them, one, two, three." Each one of them has an observation, and that's it. Well, so this man. I will read to you the response of Yassir Sayyid Imam. I mentioned him to you. I mentioned to you that he has a book called "Al-Ta'riyah li Kitab Al-Tibri'ah," in which he responds to Nasser Al-Fahd. Sayyid Imam says, and I bring this as an example today. The book, glory be to God, I did not find it. Nasser Al-Fahd responded to a question from Sayyid Imam. I will quote the words and the discussion, and then after that, I will, meaning, begin with his advice. Is a visa considered a contract of security? And if so, are the mujahideen who blew up American trade considered betrayers of the covenant? So Al-Fahd answered: The correct view is that the visa is considered a contract of security by custom, and this contract must be honored. So whoever enters the lands of the disbelievers and they were at war, through a visa, has been granted security. This is the fatwa of Ahmad and Al-Shafi'i. This is what he said. So it is not permissible for him thereafter to betray, whether in their persons or their property. And if he does so, he falls under severe warning. This is Nasser's statement. As for the September 11th operations, they are correct, based on the fact that the Americans are the heads of disbelief in this era and are the ones who have most harmed God and His Messenger. They are a complete people, each complementing the other, because the president, the government, and the army have no weight in the role of the people. Oh, how wonderful! And if you know this, it will become clear to you that they, as an entity, are similar in this aspect to Ka'b Al-Ashraf, whom the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, urged to be killed, and Muhammad bin Maslamah tricked him and showed him security, then killed him because he had harmed God and His Messenger. And this is the case of the Americans in this era. This is his statement, which Al-Zawahiri used as evidence. Sayyid Imam comments: And Al-Fahd's words contain severe confusion and contradict clear texts. As for his confusion, he confused the security of states for states with the security of states for individuals. As for his saying that the companions gave security to Ka'b and then killed him, this is a corrupt statement. Muhammad bin Maslamah himself responded to him in his story with Mu'awiyah. As for the ignorance of Mu'awiyah, the clear text that he did not mention is that America, with its aggression against the Muslims, is not in terms of criminality like someone who fought the Prophet, peace be upon him, himself. So there is no doubt that whoever fought the Prophet, peace be upon him, is more criminal than whoever fought others, the Muslims. And every disbeliever who comes after Quraysh in this world until the Day of Resurrection is merely a follower of them, no matter how great his disbelief and aggression. And this is by the text of the Prophet's hadith, peace be upon him: "People are followers of Quraysh in this matter. Their Muslims are followers of their Muslims, and their disbelievers are followers of their disbelievers." Narrated by Al-Bukhari. So America and every disbeliever are merely followers of Quraysh, who expelled the Prophet, peace be upon him, from his home and his land and insulted him with vile insults and poetry. Nevertheless, when Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman made a covenant with them not to fight him at Badr, the Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered him to honor the covenant, despite his going out to fight him, peace be upon him, himself, despite their going out to fight the Prophet, peace be upon him, himself. Hudhayfah, may God be pleased with him, said: "Nothing prevented me from witnessing Badr except that my father and I went out, and the disbelievers of Quraysh captured us. They said, 'You intend to go to Muhammad.' We said, 'We do not intend him, we only intend Medina.' So they took from us the covenant of God and His promise that we would go to Medina and not fight with him. So we came to the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, and informed him of the news. So he said: 'Go, fulfill their covenant, and we seek help from God against them.'" Narrated by him. And this is a clear text in the matter of dispute that resolves the disagreement. Despite their going out to fight the Prophet, peace be upon him, himself, Hudhayfah was ordered to honor his covenant with them, because the covenant of a Muslim with disbelievers, including the visa of security, is a personal contract between him and them, and the covenant of disbelievers does not break it, even if the disbelievers aggress against other Muslims, based on the hadith of Hudhayfah and the saying of God Almighty: "And if they seek your help in religion, then it is incumbent upon you to help, except against a people with whom you have a covenant." Yes, and for this reason, Al-Shafi'i said: "A chapter on the one who is granted security in the land of war. If a group of Muslims enters the land of war with security, then the enemy is secure from them until they leave them or reach the duration of their security, and it is not permissible for them to wrong them or betray them. And we help the enemy, their children and their women. I would not like them to betray the enemy, but I would like them to ask them to return their security to them and renounce them. If they do so, and they do that, we will fight them." Children of Muslims and their women. Nasser Al-Fahd abandoned all of this and resorted to seeking excuses for the perpetrators of September 11th. He resorted to accusing the companions, even the Prophet, peace be upon him, of betrayal in the incident of Ka'b Al-Ashraf. And the one who does this, his judgment is known in Islam, and that is a punishment for whoever turns away from the clear texts of Sharia and resorts to them for the sake of the jurisprudence of justification, which was mentioned in the second point of the document. Of course, it seems he leans towards declaring him an infidel, and Sayyid Imam always has this. May God guide him. He described, he described, he described God's disbelievers as people of betrayal and aggression in His saying: "They do not observe any tie or covenant with a believer, and it is they who are the transgressors." Yet, He commanded us to fulfill their covenant if we make a covenant with them, saying: "And fulfill the covenant of God when you have covenanted." "O you who have believed, fulfill the contracts." The disbelievers do this for the sake of this world, and the believers fulfill it for the sake of God and obedience to Him. And Nasser Al-Fahd did not suffice with seeking an excuse for them in the matter of September 11th by breaking the visa, but he sought an excuse for them in his previous statement to justify their killing of Americans in general in the World Trade Center, meaning in general, killing women and children. So he invented for them a hideous act, one of his hideous acts, which is the innovation of the legal entity, which made 300 million Americans equal to one individual like Ka'b Al-Ashraf. Since their leaders are equivalent to Muslims, and since there is no access to their leaders except through the people, it is permissible to kill them. So Nasser Al-Fahd permitted them to kill civilians who are not combatants. They surrendered America. And this is like killing by nationality and taxes, and it is a false innovation for reasons, including that God Almighty did not make them equal. He said: "They are not all the same." And among them, He praised the people of the two scriptures for their shortcomings, each towards the other, in rights and virtues, in His saying: "And the Jews said..." And the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not make the disbelievers of Quraysh equal. Rather, he praised some of them, such as Mut'im bin Adi, Abdullah bin Jud'an, and Al-Abbas bin Al-Rabi', and forbade killing some of them, despite their going out to fight him, such as Al-Abbas, Al-Mukhtari bin Hisham. And among them is that he said, the Persians and the Romans had no weight except from their peoples. Nevertheless, when the companions fought them, they did not apply the theory of the legal entity, which Al-Fahd invented for justification, to them. They did not make them like one person to be killed, except for those who took up arms against them. And this has been preceded by its evidence, such as Umar's prohibition of killing farmers, and this is well-known in the books of jurisprudence. And also the hadith of the Prophet: "And do not kill a laborer," even though the laborer is a servant. And among them is that despite all those whom Pharaoh killed from the children of Israel, despite his people's obedience to him, as God Almighty said: "He made his people foolish, so they obeyed him." "He made them foolish, so they obeyed him." "Indeed, they were a wicked people." Nevertheless, Moses, peace be upon him, erred in killing one man among them. And I mentioned this before. He did not make them one entity or a legal entity. Rather, he differentiated between them. And among them is that the Romans, who are today the people of Europe and America, have virtues. Of course, this is nonsense. With such a distorted understanding of the theory of the legal entity, Nasser Al-Fahd lays the foundation for the doctrine of mass killing, and abandons the apparent words of God and the words of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then abandons the words of Al-Shafi'i, Al-Shaybani, and the scholars of the Salaf, and uses Al-Fahd's corrupt words. And such is the distortion of religion and its justification, and the justification of mass bloodshed. I repeat, Sayyid Sayyid Imam is a great former jihadist organizer, and Al-Maqdisi used to mention him, and to this day he has writings on the platform of Monotheism and Jihad. This is not the word of someone from the Jamiyyah group or I don't know what. So, shall we abandon the hadith of Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman for the innovation of Nasser Al-Fahd? As for the cursing of the Prophet, peace be upon him, it does not break the covenant with the warring disbelievers, because this is part of their religion. Of course, this is not accurate, because there is cursing, seven curses, that differentiate the doctor. And also, whoever enters our lands, like the one granted security, and they were responded to with a long response. Truly, I will leave all of this now, and then I will go. Go to the advice. Advice number one. The advice relates to the fatwa of Ali Khudeir on the Ash'aris, and it is a strange fatwa, yet it is circulated and is on the platform of Monotheism and Jihad. They ask him, "What is the ruling on the Ash'aris in this era?" He says: The Ash'aris are of two types: Ash'ari grave-worshippers and idolaters. So these are polytheists. This is one. Second: Pure Ash'aris, they have nothing of major polytheism. So these are ruled as the former Ash'aris. And the former Ash'aris are of two types: The first Ash'aris, so these are Al-Kallabiyyah, and they are an innovating sect that does not disbelieve. And here we begin with the flaw and the danger. Al-Kallabiyyah, Ahmad described them as heretics and verbalists. Ibn Taymiyyah himself says that in the words of many of the Salaf, there is their disbelief. So what about Al-Kallabiyyah, who are considered extreme verbalists? And they are considered extreme verbalists. And Al-Barbahari stated the disbelief of whoever denies the voice, and Ahmad stated their Jahmiyyah, and Al-Bukhari narrated that he said: "Whoever denies that there is in the Mushaf a Quran, and that the Quran in the Mushafs is the word of God, and Al-Saduq said: 'So their door is disbelief.' And Al-Sijzi narrated the consensus on the disbelief of whoever denies the Arabic Quran. And Dawood Al-Isfahani was disbelieved for his saying of two Qurans, and that the Quran on earth is not the word of God. And this is the saying of Al-Kallabiyyah, and that there is a Quran in heaven. So to declare their disbelief is incorrect. This is incorrect. Well, the point is, this is the first flaw, the first mistake. But come, he says: The second Ash'aris, and the majority of scholars do not disbelieve them due to interpretation. So, what are their interpretations? They are the interpretations of Al-Murithi. Exactly, exactly. What are their interpretations? They are the interpretations of the Jahmiyyah. And a few scholars have gone to disbelieve them. Who are the few? Ibn Hazm, who is himself a Jahmi. Well, Ibn Hazm disbelieved the first, because Ibn Hazm disbelieved Al-Baqillani and Ibn Furk. And Ibn Taymiyyah stated that Al-Baqillani is on the path of Jahm in faith, and you are masters in the story of Jahmiyyah in faith and so on, right? So Ibn Hazm disbelieved them for their saying about the Quran and their saying about faith. And this is the saying of all Ash'aris. So Ibn Hazm disbelieved Al-Baqillani and Ibn Furk. These are early figures, not late ones. And Ibn Al-Jawzi, Ibn Al-Jawzi's words about Al-Ash'ari himself, and Al-Dashti, and some Hanbalis, and some Hanbalis. Of course, some Hanbalis, like Abu Ismail Al-Ansari, and he narrated this from more than a thousand sheikhs, and Abu Ja'far Al-Hashimi, and said that this is the doctrine of all Hanbalis. And Al-Ghazali said that it is the doctrine of all Hanbalis to disbelieve Al-Ash'ari. Then a sheikh comes and says, "Some Hanbalis." So, some Hanbalis. And Ibn Hazm, when he spoke, and you say he is among the scholars, claimed consensus. He claimed consensus. He says: And the preponderant view is that it differs according to the difference of time and place. If the time is a time of the spread of the Sunnah, or a place where it appeared, as it was in the time of Imam Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad, and then Al-Ash'ari adopted it, then he is a disbeliever. Well, in that time, there were no Ash'aris at all. Then, the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, which you use as evidence, in eight of them, ignorance and the spread of innovation and the obscurity of the Sunnah prevailed, like the time of Ibn Taymiyyah and the time of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, then there is no disbelief until the doubt is removed. And God knows best. Well, in the time of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, the majority of Ash'aris were grave-worshippers, and you do not excuse them for ignorance. So he says: No disbelief. Well, where is the proof established against him? Of course, Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab himself discussed this, saying: If we excuse someone, we will not excuse those who transmit the doctrine of the Salaf and choose the doctrine of the Khalaf, and so on. But the point is, you have already undermined yourself by mentioning Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. In their time, 90% of Ash'aris were grave-worshippers, and therefore their relevance in the issues of the divinity of God is greater than in the issues of names and attributes. So here your words become devoid of meaning and useless. Knowing that the issue of God's transcendence in the elaborations of Sheikh Al-Islam is stronger than the issues of the divinity of God, as stated in the explanations of Al-Jihah. Then he gives you a nice note. He says: A note. There is a sect that is among the people of the Sunnah in Friday prayers, but they agreed with the Ash'aris and believe in all circumstances, the circumstances of the Ash'aris, of prioritizing reason over نقل (narration), rather, their circumstances are prioritizing the Book and the Sunnah, and the same prioritization of reason. Examples are Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Furk, and the like. Of course, Ibn Furk, whom Ibn Hazm, whom he mentioned earlier, disbelieved. Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Furk, their call is that these do not prioritize reason over نقل. This is ignorance. First, Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Furk state that reports of one person are not accepted if they do not have a basis in the Quran. This is their known doctrine. Second, every interpreter prioritizes reason over نقل. When he says to you, "This is impossible for God," therefore we resort to interpretation. This is truly prioritizing reason. And for this reason, Ibn Taymiyyah used to call their actions distortion, not interpretation. And he said that the interpretations found in his words are the interpretations of Al-Murithi. So if you claim that these people, who said similar things to the interpretations of Al-Murithi regarding attributes that do not please him, did not prioritize reason over نقل, then even Al-Murithi did not prioritize reason over نقل. Well, and yet, he says, there are great scholars whom no one has accused of being Kharijites, and Al-Alwani mentions Abu Hanifa, declaring them disbelievers, and mentions Ibn Khuthaymah. And Al-Khudeir mentions, and Al-Khudeir mentions, what is his name, some Hanbalis, and Al-Dashti, and Ibn Hazm, and Ibn Al-Jawzi. How many is that? Five or six. Well, and he mentions the disbelief of the grave-worshippers. Well, that's great. So these are with us, and the others mention who they mention. What is his name? Abu Ismail Al-Ansari. And you yourselves, O Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, in "Al-Istiqamah," and you have an interest. Ibn Taymiyyah narrated the words of Ismail Al-Ansari about Al-Nahawandi and others, that he met a thousand sheikhs who held the view of Al-Nahawandi in disbelieving the Ash'aris, and used this statement as evidence against Al-Qushayri. So Ibn Taymiyyah confirms this. So how many is that now? So we have dozens. He says in "Al-Fatawa Al-Hayriyyah," Nasser Al-Fahd: "The texts of transcendence were apparent in the time of the Salaf, so they disbelieved whoever denied and interpreted them. And they interpreted them. Then they became hidden after the spread of doubts among Muslims in the noble Quran. For this reason, you find that those who interpret them are mostly scholars, mostly adhering to the texts, not denying them or rejecting them." In the virtuous centuries, but this issue, for which there are more than a thousand pieces of evidence, was clear. Then, after the virtuous centuries, the Ummah of Muhammad remained in the darkness of ignorance and lack of understanding for nine centuries or ten centuries. And Al-Ghazali himself says that our belief in denying transcendence is not believed by anyone except one in a thousand. So, by God, look at Nasser Al-Fahd's eagerness to disbelieve, and he considers playing football not a matter of difference of opinion, but a matter of judgment by Taghut. Then you find this strange statement in this topic. And Ibn Taymiyyah, in "Dar' Al-Ta'arud," says: "And for this reason, the Salaf were unanimous in disbelieving whoever denied that, because it is known from the religion by necessity." Well, he contradicts the general creed. He says: "And the books of the people of the آثار (traditions) are full of narrations from the Salaf that agree with the people of affirmation." He also says: "And the early Ash'aris affirm transcendence. So how was it hidden?" Meaning, if the early Ash'aris, you now, Ali Khudeir, differentiated between early and later Ash'aris, and Al-Kallabiyyah are different, right? So Al-Kallabiyyah and the early Ash'aris affirm transcendence. So it was not hidden after the virtuous centuries. To the extent that they know that the early ones affirm transcendence. Rather, Al-Baghawi and Al-Khittabi, who are the authorities in explaining the hadiths after them from Al-Shafi'i, according to their way, narrate the consensus on affirming the direction. And these are them. And Al-Qurtubi admitted, saying: "The words of the Salaf are clear in affirming the direction." And Al-Thahabi said: "It is clear." And whoever says it is not rejected, he has interpreted more than a thousand texts. This is equivalent to rejection. But in the divinity of God, he says: "There is no excuse. There is no excuse." In the attributes, it is not hidden. And Muhammad Abd Al-Wahhab, the Sheikh, the Imam, the renewer, the scholar of the call, says: "And as for the statement of the Sheikh that you have been deceived by, it is more severe than this. And if we were to say it, we would have disbelieved many of the famous individuals by name." Meaning, famous Jahmiyyah. For he explicitly states by name that one is not disbelieved unless the proof is established against him. So if the individual is disbelieved when the proof is established against him, then it is known that establishing it does not mean understanding the words of God and His Messenger like the understanding of Abu Bakr. Rather, if the words of God and His Messenger are conveyed to him, and he is devoid of anything that excuses him, then he is a disbeliever. Then, after that, he proves their remoteness from excuse. What does he say? "And it is known that they mention in their books, in the issues of attributes, or in the issue of the Quran, or in the issue of istiwa', and so on, the doctrine of the Salaf, and they mention that what God and His Messenger commanded, and what the companions followed, then they mention Al-Ash'ari and others, and they prefer them and insult whoever opposes them. So if we assume that it was not established against the majority of them, it was established against this individual who narrates the two doctrines, and then chooses a doctrine." So who is this individual? Al-Qurtubi, our sheikhs. Even Al-Murithi, he said to him, "Tell him, O 'Ilah." And Ibn Al-Arabi said to Al-Juwayni clearly: "Do not rely on the سمعيات (auditory texts) in affirming attributes, or negating them, or explaining what is impossible for God, what is not impossible." So your saying that they are mostly adhering to the texts and so on is nonsense. Rather, Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly stated why he authored "Dar' Al-Ta'arud." Imam Ahmad said: "If he is among the people of speech or among the people of hadith, then refrain. If he says the Quran is not created, then he is a Jahmi." So he made his knowledge of hadith an evidence. And Ibn Sahlman says in "Kashf Al-Shubuhat," as if he is responding to these two men: "And if God's enemies, the Jahmiyyah, and the worshippers of graves, have had the proof established against them and the call has reached them, and if he becomes defiant, no one denies this except a stubborn person. So how do these ignorant people claim that one is not told, 'You are a disbeliever, you are a polytheist, you are a sinner, you are a hypocrite, you are a Jahmi, you are an innovator,' even though what has come from the grave-worshippers and the Jahmiyyah is not but hidden insults whose evidence is hidden, and the majority of them, of course, mislead the people of Sunnah." And Ibn Al-Qayyim said: "O my people, you have sought refuge in ignorance, so you will not be excused for injustice and tyranny." So thus I said in the end, in the end of my response: "So here are several situations from which excuse is denied in every case: to add to the negation the worship of other than God, and Nasser admitted this. And this is the case of many who seek help from other than God, very many. Second: to transmit the doctrine of the Salaf and then deviate from it. And this is explicitly stated regarding the non-excuse of Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab. Third: to disbelieve the people of Sunnah or mislead them and issue a fatwa permitting their blood, as he issues a fatwa permitting the blood of Ibn Taymiyyah for affirming transcendence. And this is indicated by the words of Ibn Al-Qayyim. Fourth: to reject the reports. And this is indicated by the words of Nasser Al-Fahd, who says that reports of one person in creed are not accepted, for example, or something like that. He says: 'And you will not bring me a Jahmi from the prominent ones today except that I will include him under one of these.' And more generally, I have made it long for you, but this is the first advice regarding the ruling on these people. After this, you excuse everyone who opposes more than a thousand pieces of evidence, then you describe whoever opposes you in the issue of ruling or the issue of Hatib as a Murji' or a Jahmi or something else or something else. If the evidence for the issue of transcendence, with its clarity, was hidden in the past and delayed, then what is less than it is not hidden in our time. Rather, if we consider this, it will open the door of excuse even for the secularist who denies the apostasy punishment and the punishment for adultery and others. The third matter, now, if we speak, the third matter, you, and the observer in general, among your movement, by God, if you come out of prison now, you will find that the majority of them are not on your doctrine, and they have gone right and left. And this can happen to many, but what is the reason? The reason is that the matter is not scholarly, but rather the passion of people. For many of them, you will find them leaning towards leniency after seeing that the movement should distance us from creedalism. So you will find them leaning towards leniency and leaning towards something close to the Brotherhood and close to the approach of Al-Qardawi, whom you used to condemn. And you will find others becoming enraged and going to extremism. O group of people, when students of knowledge enter a movement, in most cases they are exploited, nothing more. They are exploited. So if they write something that contradicts the plans of these activists, they say to him, "The interest, and so on, and so on." And if he writes something that agrees with them, they promote it and publish it. So in your mind is monotheism and creed, and in his mind is his project. And believe me, they will not be satisfied with you, and you may go to prison, and they may promote other personalities at your expense, and they promote these personalities because they are closer to their movement principles than you. And you find people only publishing a part of your knowledge and matters that conform to desire, and leaving other matters. The matter that follows, O Sheikh, by God, we have seen in recent times that many common people have fallen into the ideology of victimhood. They have fallen into the ideology of victimhood, and it has become, under the pretext that the rulers are oppressors, secular, and wicked, that they do not hold themselves accountable for anything. And many of them have fallen into pure rights-based activism, and fallen into secularism, and have been influenced by the discourse of liberals in rights and freedom and other things. And this discourse has begun to Islamize them, and many of them have been influenced by Western culture without realizing it, and they have fallen into a great confusion that has a beginning but no end. So he rejoices greatly in your criticism of the ruler and your words about him, whether the ruler is secular or otherwise. Then you find him justifying himself in his anger at staying in the lands of the disbelievers and not establishing God's law in his home and among his children and other things, under the pretext that we are, meaning, followers of these, and if these do not establish the matter for us, then we have no relation to it. And how many supporters of some groups have we seen who used to rejoice during the victories, and then after that, as soon as defeat occurred, they returned to terrible backsliding. And O Sheikh, do you not see that Ibn Taymiyyah now, even in his grave, has benefited greatly from his heritage because he built the issue from its foundations and established and clarified, and was not overwhelmed by some جزئيات (details) from the principles of the major foundations. But what we see of your situations and the situations of others is that due to the pressure of reality, you have become, you have become focused on جزئيات to a great extent, and the discourse has not become a foundational discourse in the manner of the Sheikh. And O Sheikh, by God, now the observer, how many have we seen who are indifferent to knowledge and its people and students of knowledge in the name of the issues of the Ummah? And you have been imprisoned, and you have a truthful tongue. And O Sheikh, so you must speak and explain to people this deep problem. So do not let the issues of the Ummah become a door to the ignorance of creation, and then the seductive doubts of atheism and the seductive doubts of heresy will greatly assassinate them. So we do not, so we do not, so we do not establish the state of Islam, nor does knowledge remain for the people, and goodness, and so on. And O Sheikh, O Sheikh, O Sheikh, you are among those who are most annoyed by being described as Kharijites and other things, but you have followers, you have followers. And O Sheikh, you have followers. You admit that the Jahmiyyah and the Ash'aris are three corrupting innovations, and four. You admit this, and you admit that whoever has had the proof established against them among them is a disbeliever. But O Sheikh, the observer today is that people have reached the stage of saying, "Are these people of the Sunnah or not of the Sunnah?" and of being indifferent to discussing the differences with them. And look at the catastrophe. Do not open a creedal book except that you find words about many sects, and you find the harshest words about the Jahmiyyah, and the words about the Jahmiyyah include the Ash'aris. But as soon as you change Jahmiyyah and put Ash'ariyyah, the discussion changes from the greatest severity to the easiest trivialization, even though the words are the same, and the traditions are the same. And you have done this yourselves in some of your fatwas, some of your matters. By God, if nothing else had happened in knowledge, if nothing else had happened in knowledge except this, it would have been a great omen of evil. So what is the benefit of knowledge and creed and so on if the greatest innovations are tested by the Islam of their people, and tested by the admonition of their people, and whoever disbelieves is attacked and accused of being Kharijite? So you, when you disbelieved, for example, you disbelieved the spy, and you disbelieved the absolute issue of ruling by what God has revealed, and you disbelieved this and that, some of your companions have differed with you, and you do not doubt that some of your companions have differed with you. So if they say to you, "You are Kharijites because you disagree," you say, "No, we have Salaf. Search for yourselves for a Salaf." So in disbelieving a spy, you bring Dawood Al-Maliki, you bring him to verify what is with him, even though those who differed with him differed with him, and you do this and that, and you use evidence, and so on. So when a person comes and presents to you the disbelief of a Jahmi sect with four criteria, and there is no criterion among them except that consensus has been narrated about it, and you have described the مخالف (opponent) and found those who describe the مخالف as Kharijites, you are the most deserving of defending and explaining that this is a severe dilution of the creed, and that with this dilution, no victory is hoped for, and no good is hoped for. Now, O Sheikh, because of the Taliban and other than the Taliban, people have begun to dilute the creedal differences. So there is no benefit from your book that talks about Al-Shatibi or others or others. People see these differences as minor and not worth anything, and how often they say, "Do not bother the common people," and so on. Even though the Jahmiyyah have a presence, he says, "Do not bother the common people with this talk," and so on. And the Jahmiyyah are expanding and growing and assassinating the minds of those they assassinate. And the majority of them, as you say, are grave-worshippers. And they call for the worship of graves. Then, glory be to God, and now the polytheism is disguised in the name of venerating these Jahmiyyah. So the Ash'ari comes and says to the people, "These Wahhabis are misleading the scholars of Islam, the Ash'aris, and praising them, and saying that we cannot do without their books," and so on. So people's hearts are filled with the veneration of these Jahmiyyah. Then, because of your veneration, they come to you with their words about grave-worship and say, "Look, these are the scholars of Islam, and they say this and that." So many people have grown up with this affliction, or many of them found it in their fathers and grandfathers. So you find that after being an denouncer of polytheism, his foot slips into polytheistic acts, and he returns. And we have seen many, many, many of these. So do you see, so do you see, O Sheikh, that the American occupation of some lands is easier than this, or worse than this? Or do you see that this creedal assassination has a great impact on people's souls? And you read Ibn Taymiyyah and you know his saying that the dominance of the people of innovation, meaning the disbelieving innovators, over people's hearts is greater than the dominance of the Tatars. For these corrupt the lands of the Muslims directly. And you know his saying, and you, the group of fatwas, that because of the innovations of the Jahmiyyah, the enemy has dominated us. And you know his saying that because of the spread of the books of Ibn Al-Khatib and Ibn Arabi, disbelief has spread. And you know the Sufis. You and Ali Khudeir talk about the Ash'aris, that among them are grave-worshippers and so on, and you do not tell people that the majority of them in this era venerate Ibn Arabi. And this is precisely what removes the excuse, since they have moved on to greater polytheistic acts and calamities, and their saying has become.

More severe than the saying of the Jahmiyyah, and Ibn Taymiyyah, I state to you a definitive text that their saying, "not inside the world and not outside it," is more severe than the saying that "Allah is in every place." So if they move to a more severe saying, then this is an excuse for what you are talking about, as long as they moved to a more severe saying, more severe than what their predecessors were upon. For their predecessors affirm the Highness, and they contradict them, then they do not say the first saying of the Jahmiyyah, but rather they increase and go astray until they say the saying of the later Jahmiyyah, and a saying that is more severe than the first saying of the Jahmiyyah. So if you excuse these, then Allah is the Helper. How trivial is the excuse in any other matter after that! How trivial is the excuse and how easy it is in any other matter!

And if a person came and described you as a Khariji, then what is the difference between one who describes you as a Khariji, or a Mushabbih (anthropomorphist), or a Mujassim (corporealist)? O my brother, the discussion about declaring a Khariji an unbeliever is less than the discussion about declaring a Mujassim and the Mushabbih, sorry, yes, so the Mushabbih and Mujassim, these, they speak about declaring them unbelievers. And I have seen the generality of the Ash'aris of our era consider the issue of declaring us, the people of Sunnah, unbelievers, as a matter of scholarly disagreement and ijtihad, except for a very small minority among them. Then if you investigate it, you will find it closer to secularism.

And O Sheikh, you rejoiced at the destruction of Buddha's idols and you praised Mullah Mohammed Omar with great praise, isn't that so? And you glorified him and magnified him greatly. And some Jihadi currents, like the Islamic State group, when they destroyed the shrines of Al-Rifa'i and others, this was greatly magnified in your souls, and I too, this was greatly magnified in my soul. But O Sheikh, like the demolition of graves by those you call Madakhila in Libya, they also demolished shrines.

And O Sheikh, O Sheikh, this demolition of shrines is only known through knowledge, and you yourself wrote refutations against Yusuf al-Qaradawi when he wanted to assassinate people with doubts, so it is known here that there must be knowledge, and knowledge must involve expansion. And O Sheikh, O Sheikh, just as the demolition of graves is a great matter, so its demolition in physical form, its demolition in hearts is greater and greater. Its demolition in hearts is greater and greater. And this is among the commonalities between all Salafi currents, for there is no one among them except that he calls and clarifies and explains, and hundreds of thousands have been guided by their hands and abandoned shrines. And there are shrines that were demolished by the hands of their people, by the hands of their people. So how many a person was the owner of a zawiya and was the owner of such and such, then some people came to him and spoke to him, so he abandoned and left, and stood clearly. And this is for you to know.

So the story is not only, by Allah, that Mullah Mohammed Omar took power and demolished Buddha's idols, and you glorified this matter, and no doubt this is a good matter, but also there are other currents about which you say what you say, they do what is more severe, which are these graves that are worshipped by those affiliated with the religion of Islam, and this fitna (trial/strife) in them is greater.

Yes, Buddha's idols are demolished, and there are people who call (to Islam) and thousands of Buddhists, and tens and hundreds of thousands, convert to Islam at their hands. I will tell you something: Abd al-Rahman al-Sumait, Abd al-Rahman al-Sumait, Abd al-Rahman al-Sumait, millions of Africans embraced Islam at his hands, and this is a matter we all know, and all people glorify this man. This man, for your information, on Al-Majd channel, used to boast that he received financial aid from some rulers of countries whom you call tyrants and so on. It is possible that he interprets them as Muslims and does not declare them unbelievers.

This man, how many shrines did he demolish? How many worshipped besides Allah did he demolish? How many idols did he demolish from what the disbelievers of Africa and the pagans of Africa worshipped? Hundreds of thousands, and he made their people demolish them. And after the demolition, their people became Muslims, right or wrong? Do you see this as a trivial matter, O Sheikh Nasser? Do you see this as a trivial matter, O Sheikh Ali? Do you see this as a trivial matter?

So the matter is not only in the narrow scope, only in your current and in what it does and in such and such. Other currents also have their effect and have, even in Monufia some time ago – Monufia, the country where Ruslan and others are – they rose up against one of the shrines and demolished it. They rose up against one of the famous shrines and demolished the worship of other than Allah.

And this Al-Wadi'i, this Al-Wadi'i, the man who, I mean, agreed with you on some matters and disagreed with you on others. By Allah, I heard him in an Eid sermon, and he wanted to cry as he spoke to the people and told them, "I mean, after all we have taught you, a charlatan or a sorcerer comes to you, and you go to him to get your daughter back, and to light a fire." And he was very angry, saying, "Your wife dies, and you have no children," and so on. And he spoke with harsh, impactful words in an Eid sermon.

And this man, how many people grew up in polytheistic practices, whether the polytheistic practices of the Sufis or the polytheistic practices of others! And how many a man was with you, O Sheikh Nasser, in the early days of the path, and now he propagates for the Da'wa (call) that says that the Ash'aris and Maturidis are from the people of Sunnah! How many a man was with you, O Sheikh Nasser, and now he walks with people whose noses turn red if you speak against Al-Azhar or speak against Al-Jifri, and you know that these people spread polytheism and call to it!

Al-Jabri, specifically, was with you initially. Now he has changed, but he was with you in the story of rights, rights, and rights, then after that he changed. I am not telling you not to demand rights, nor am I telling you. And how many a person whose principle was the talk of rights, rights, and rights, and now he has transformed into a rights-based discourse, and a discourse close to the feminist discourse, and the discourse of liberals, and secularists, and others, and others!

O Sheikh, the discourse should have been one without flattery, without evasion, and without focusing on one aspect over another. It should have been a broad discourse, a broad, strong, firm discourse, like the discourses of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah and the zeal of the Najdi Da'wa. When some extremists appeared, they did not fall short. Look at the letters of Ibn Sahman, look at the letters of Abd al-Latif, look at such and such.

And O Sheikh, now if you were to leave your prison, your head would ache, it would split from the abundance of issues of extremists, and issues of the harsh, and issues of human rights activists, and issues of such and such, and issues of such and such. And may Allah help you, and may Allah help you. And in the end, people care about bravado and care about such and such, and your scientific effort is appreciated by students of knowledge like me.

By Allah, O Sheikh, I do not find your messages being published or cared for except by some who only admire your stance on the government. And look, O Sheikh, at currents, meaning you, you, I mean, you overlooked some transgressions for them, and for the sake of expediency, you went along with them. And in the end, they started to prevent messages. Of course, you might say, "By Allah, I mean, it doesn't concern me." No, when they prevented the messages, it was for an activist reason. And I, by Allah, took a lesson from you, you and your like. I took a very great lesson from you. I took a lesson from you and said that it is not enough for me to spread knowledge, but rather I should look at the scourges that will devour my knowledge after my death and attack them with the fiercest attack. Because it is possible that I call to the traditions, and call to such and such, and call to such and such, and call to such and such, and leave the activism, and leave this activism which will devour the youth after my death and distance them from these matters to which I called. So I said, these matters, I must strike them with all the strength I possess to protect these efforts. Otherwise, these efforts have no value. And they will communicate among themselves, "Leave this one, he is an extremist. Leave this one, he has issues. Leave." And the good materials, so-and-so and so-and-so will take them, and they will take them and put them in their messages after changing their appearance, and putting makeup on them, and coloring them, and doing with them what they do. And leave him for his mention to die so that people are not affected by his extremism. What is the definition of extremism? A definition related to the emergency clause that activist currents have. Allah is the Helper.