An Interview With Shaikh Ghunaymaan

8/2/2019 An Interview With Shaikh Ghunaymaan

1/7


2/7

and responding from the older scholars, not from those of his time. May Allaah preserve him,

and lengthen his age, and Bless his work, and make him steadfast upon the Truth - Ameen.

And what will proceed is the text of the questions I asked him, and his answers, which Al-

Bashaair put forth for the students of Knowledge, so it can be a manar that they be guided

by, and a lamp they light by. We ask Allaah to reward him for what he gave us of his time,and put this on his scale, Allaah is Ghafoor, Shakoor.

Sallalaahu alaa Muhammad wa alaa aalihi wa sahbihi ajmaeen.

------------------------------------------------

Q: What are the general fundamentals of Ahl us-sunnah, in which a person who

opposes them (the fundamentals) he would then be considered to have left Ahl us-

Sunnah?... Also, which book has gathered them all (the fundamentals)?

A: Bismillaah ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem, wa sallallaahu alaa abdihi wa rasoolihi, nabeenaa

Muhammad.

The fundamentals of Ahl us-Sunnah are what came in the hadeeth of Jibreel, belief in Allaah,

his angels, etc, and what branches off from it. Regarding the book that has gathered them, the

Aqeedah of Ahl us-Sunnah has gathered them all. So whoever leaves these fundamentals, he

will be considered to have left Ahl us-Sunnah.

Q: Is practicing Hijrah (from a person who is in sin, or innovation) related to the

overall good and evil outcome?

A: Yes, Hijrah is discipline and a treatment, so if Hijrah does not gain anything but instead

increases him (the person who the hijrah is from) in falsehood, then it is not permissible to do

Hijrah from him. Instead he is spoken to and advised in a way which is most beneficial to

him. Whereas if [neither] speech nor debate benefits him, then he should be turned away

from.

Q: Is it permissible to criticize (shari), to make hijrah and be baraa (i.e. having

enmity) from someone merely because of his following of theMadhaahib (ways)

or Jamaaaatlike the Ikhwaan or Tableegh and others?... And what is the Shari way to

affirm praise and criticism for individuals, sides, and groups?

A: This way is not permissible, merely because of following a group from the groups of the

Muslims, for example a fiqhi madhhab or what resembles this. It is not permissible to make

this a cause of cutting relations, hate and enmity. Enmity and hatred should be with regards to

what has come in the Kitaab of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi

wa sallam). And some claim a differing with them in an understanding is an opposing in the

manhaj, and it is possible that he is the opposing and mistaken, and the other closer to the

Truth than him.

And what is meant is that theMeezaan (scale) should be the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah

of His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and the praise is for who Allaah and his


3/7

Messenger have praised.

And similarly criticism is for who Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam)

have criticized, and with the names that Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa

sallam) have named.

Whereas [concerning] people; then it is not looked to them (their meezaan) in praise and

criticism, because they could be following desires or wrong in their sayings, and there are

many things which can effect a person in his praisings and criticizing of others. And

the waajib is to be fair. And Allaah has ordered justice in saying and action, and so it is

obligatory to follow Allaahs Saying in this.

Q: What is your opinion of he who differentiates between Ahl us-Sunnah and the

Salafiyyah, and makes the Salafiyyah a group more specified than Ahl us-Sunnah, and

who make its fundamentals what the mashaayikh of their "group" are upon of opinions

and sayings? (Note from the translator: this is what the Khuloof [i.e. the so-called Salafis]

do, making the opinions of their Mashaayikh into the fundamentals of the Sunnah)

A: This saying is far from the Truth, because Ahl us-Sunnah are those who follow the

Sahaabah and what the Salaf were upon, and these were not one sect, and the others another

sect (Note: I think he is referring to the Sahaabah and the remaining two generations of the

Salaf), nor is the Salafiyyah more specific!

And what is correct is that the Salaf are the Sahaabah and whoever follows their path, and

Ahl us-Sunnah are those who have followed the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam),

and they are those which it was narrated about

...What I and my Sahaabah were upon (The hadeeth of the saved sect)

And claiming difference merely because of labels is not permissible, and Allaah has ordered

the Believers to be united, and warned from splitting up.

And the persons hope should be for Truth, and if he says something; he says it with fairness

and justice. He shouldnt hate a person and cause his hatred to [make himself] reject the

Truth which the other says, or to attack his shortcomings, nor should he bring things... (Note:

I dont understand the rest of this phrase), this has nothing to do with Ahl us-Sunnah. And the

Muslim should love for his Brother what he loves for himself, and he should advise him, and

should make the advice loved by him.

Q: What is your opinion regarding denying Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah, and is making it

into a separate category a cause to exit someone from the way of the Salaf? And in

which type of Tawheed does this category enter?

A: It is not permissible to deny Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah, for it is from the types of

Tawheed. But it falls under Tawheed al-Ibaadah with regards to the ruler himself as a

person. With regards to it meaning Tawheed, then it falls under ar-Ruboobeeyyah, because

the Ruler is Allaah.

So it should be that the Rabb is the Muttasarrif, He is the One who has the Hukm, so it fallsunder Tawheed Ar-Ruboobeeyyah with regards to ruling, ordering, prohibiting, and carrying


4/7


5/7

And it is known that this is like what Shaykh Al-Islaam Muhammad bin Abdel-Wahhaab(rahimahullaah) said; that this preference from them, of preferring the way of the Kuffaar

over the way of the Mu'mineen, was not based on Aqeedah, because they knew with

certainty that the way of the Mu'mineen is better and more Guided, and yet Allaah has cursed

them.

Q:Is praising some of those who fall into bidah - regarding the good they have done in

the matters of Islaam which agreed with the Sunnah; is doing so (i.e. praising them in

their good) deviating from the Minhaaj of the Salaf?... And did Ibn Taymiyyah do so?...

And was his doing so from being just and fair?

A: Yes, a person should be treated fairly in his right, and the Truth should be said about him;

so if he does good, it is said to him you did good. If he is mistaken, it is said to him you

have been mistaken. And it has proceeded that the Meezaan for this is the Kitaab and

Sunnah, regarding what Allaah has declared good and praised, it is obligatory to declare it

good and praise it. And what Allaah has criticized, then it should be criticized.

And it is possible that a person leaving the evidence and Truth be because of Ijtihaad, and he

would not be a sinner, and the sign of this is if the Truth is made clear to him then he returns

to the Truth, follows it, and disassociates himself regarding what he was upon before. So it is

not permissible to embarrass him, but he should be praised.

And [regarding] Shaykh Al-Islaam, this was his way, and his books are present. He used to

praise some of the people, even if they were opposing [him] in a matter in which they

differed from Ahl us-Sunnah.

Q: Is it a condition that to remove a Munkar (i.e. evil, wrong-doing) by hand, thatpermission should first be sought from the ruler?

A: The removing of the Munkar came in steps, as is in the Hadeeth in the saying of the

Messenger;

"Whoever of you sees a Munkar then he should change it with his hand, if he is not able, then

with his tongue, and if he is not able, then with his heart."

And this is general for the one who is changing the Munkar and for the Munkar itself. And in

it there is no specification of anyone over anyone else, except that the matter and conditions

should be examined, so if the changing of the Munkar will cause a greater Munkar then it isnot permissible to change it, regardless if the person is a ruler or a citizen.

But if he knows that if he changes the munkar, then the munkar will lessen and good will

come out, then he must change the munkar whether he is a ruler, or other than the ruler. This

is because of the meaning of the hadeeth of the Rasool (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). And

regarding narrowing the words of Allaah and His Messenger without evidence, then it is not

permissible.

(Note: the Khuloof try to claim that to change a Munkar with your hand, you must seek

permission of the ruler first. The Shaykh refutes this type of idea)

Q: Is it permissible to make the fundamentals of the Deen to be only the issues of Belief,


6/7

and make the branches the issues of action?

A: The fundamentals of the Deen are not the Beliefs only. There is no separation between the

Aqeedah and actions in the Deen. There is no where in the Kitaab, nor the Sunnah that the

fundamentals are the Aqeedah alone, and that the branches are actions alone. This

differentiation came from the Mutazilah, for they are the ones who differentiated betweenthe fundamentals and branches in this way.

Q: Is it a condition for defensive or offensive Jihaad that a ruler exist?... Imaam

Abdur-Rahmaan bin Hasan (rahimahullah) mentioned that no one of the people of

Knowledge ever made this condition, so do you know of anyone to make this condition?

A: It is not one of the conditions of Jihaad, neither defensive or offensive.

Regarding the defensive Jihaad, then it is clear, because if the enemy enters the lands [of the

Muslims], then [the obligation to fight] is upon everyone who is able to fight him off;

[concerning] even the women it is obligatory upon them to fight, like the fuqahaa have

mentioned, because this is a individual (ayn) obligation. The [purpose of the] Imaam is for

organization; so if one exists then this is good, and if none exists it is still waajib upon the

Muslims to fight.

Q: What is the difference between receiving the proof, and understanding the proof

(Hujjah)?... Which of them is a condition for establishing

the proof (Hujjah) [against a person]?

A: Receiving the proof means that he has heard the Kitaab of Allaah, and heard that Allaah

has a Messenger; then the proof becomes established. In regards to understanding it, it is nota condition, and no one has made it one.

And the difference is clear, for Allaah has told us that from the Kuffaar are those that are

blind, deaf and mute, and calling him is like calling the beasts: they dont hear anything

except a call and sounds.

And He has said that many of the people of Hell have hearts that they dont understand with,

and that many of them are more astray than cattle. And He (Jalla wa alaa) said,

{They say, 'we dont understand much of what you say.'}

And even so, it has come in Saheeh al-Muslim,

By Allaah, [there is] not a red or white [person] who hears of me and does not Believe,

except that Allaah will make him fuel in Hell.

So Allaah made their hearing the proof enough. So if he hears, it is up to him to understand,

and he should ask for the understanding himself.

Q: Leaving acting completely (meaning turning away from acting upon the obligations,

and leaving the prohibitions); has he turned away from submission?... And is his

Eemaan correct with [merely the] testification of the Truth and affirming it (Tasdeeq


7/7

wa Iqraar), while leaving all actions completely without a cause?

A: This is not possible to be straight, to leave acting completely! Because Islaam is action,

and not merely saying. And if a person said Laa illaaha illallaah and believed in its

correctness and that the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is True, but he does

nothing at all - while his ability to [is intact] - then he is ruled as a kaafir, and he is not fromthe people of Islaam because it is an obligation of submission, following, and action.

Q: And the saying that kufr is not possible except through Takdheeb (i.e. declaring

something that is agreed upon to be false); is this branching off from the saying of the

Murjiah?

A:Kufr is many types, and the Murjiah and others of them from the people of innovation

said that it's basis must be Takdheeb only, but this saying opposes the evidence and Truth.

And it is known that the Messenger was sent with miracles and proofs that will cause the

heart to be humble. Takdheeb is the least that occurs in the peoples. The most common kufr

is the kufr of arrogance, denial, and stubborness, and Allaah has mentioned regarding the

Quraysh that they dont belie the Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), but instead the

Dhaalimeen to Allaahs Aayaat deny, and this is very common.

So the Scholars have divided kufr into categories: Kufr of turning away, kufr of arrogance,

kufr of belie (takdheeb), and kufr of doubt.

And the evidences for this are many in the Kitaab of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger

(sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam). And the story of Abi Taalib with the Prophet (sallallaahu

'alayhi wa sallam) is clear. And he used to testify to his Truth, and would say that he does notlie, and did not bring any lies, and yet he is a Kaafir, because he did not affirm with his

tongue, nor submit with his actions.

(There is a final question, which is related to what occurred between the Sahaabah, and

refutes the Rawaafid. The question is not related to the remainder of the questions, and I

dont think there is a problem in this issue on this forum, inshaa Allaah)

Documents

An Interview With Shaikh Ghunaymaan