[Hanbali]

The Eminent, ash-Shaykh Hamood bin `Uqlaa ash-Shu`aybee - Rahimahullah - (was asked):

The declarations made about Sayyid Qutb - rahimahullah - have greatly increased, some say he is innocent of any mistakes and some qualify him at the same level as the fornicators among the disbelievers, so where is the truth in this matter?

The reply (of the Shaykh):

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds and all the prayers be unto the Last Prophet, to continue:

Indeed, the political thinker Sayyid Qutb - rahimahullah - has a great number of enemies, who differ in their method of criticism and its purposes, and who also share common interests. But before I expose the accusations directed towards Sayyid - rahimahullah - I would like to clarify the reason why Sayyid Qutb is being targeted specifically.

Sayyid - rahimahullah - was considered in his era as a science amongst the knowledge of the people who’s curriculum was to fight the oppressors and declare them as disbelievers. He was also one of the unique preachers who called on people to worship their Lord and who preached the unification of all laws to none other than Allah. He did not bow down under the enemies of Allah and His Prophet, like Jamal Abdel-Nasser and his likes .. no one was happier by his death than the latter. The tolerance of these wrongdoers wore thin; indeed, when they thought they had killed him, he restored his curriculum with his blood and he lit up his words with enthusiasm. He became more accepted among the Muslims, and the distribution of his books increased because he guided with his truth and the boldness of his strong curriculum. They worked on stabbing him again, due to the appeal they had to destroy his curriculum.

The targeting of Sayyid Qutb - rahimahullah - wasn’t just due to his personality, indeed he isn’t the first scholar to commit small mistakes, he has made mistakes that we do not deny. Surely, the goal of his stabbing wasn’t his downfall, he has been sent forward to his Lord and we ask Allah to accept him among the martyrs. Indeed, what still worries his enemies and their followers is his curriculum (minhaj) which they fear will spread amongst the children of the Muslims.

When I hear the backstabbing of Sayyid Qutb - rahimahullah - I am not surprised, because Allah - ta`aala - said: "And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies." [3] Whoever has inside him a light of prophethood, also has enemies amongst the wrongdoers, in proportion to the heritage he received from our Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam). Indeed, all the backstabbing of the backstabbers does not harm Sayyid, it merely increases his good deeds. What is most surprising is the actions of those groups which claim to be amongst the followers of the truth (various "Muslim" brotherhoods), who surely lack balance (fairness) and who do not use the right scale. Allah says: "Woe to al-Mutaffifeen [those who give less in measure and weight (decrease the rights of others)]; Those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, demand full measure; And when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due." [4] So when these people want to praise a person which has been criticized much more than Sayyid, they say their famous words: "His mistakes are dipped in a sea of good deeds," and another saying: "If the water rises a little, it won’t bring malice," and others similar. Similarly, If they wanted to slander someone, like Sayyid - rahimahullah - who counts as a renewer (Mujaddid) of faith in the door of: All judgements belong to Allah, they tied him to the ways of the Khawaarij and they declared him a disbeliever, using sins and mistakes to do so.

We do not claim that Sayyid - rahimahullah - is free of mistakes, surely he has mistakes whose details have no place in this document. They do not affect his preaching nor his curriculum, similarly to how other scholars have committed mistakes which haven’t discredited their ranks, like for example: Ibn Hajar, an-Nawaawee, Ibn al-Jawzee and Ibn Hazm. The latter have made some errors in `aqeedah but which haven’t stopped the children and scholars of the Ummah from benefiting from them or from refuting their truthfulness and denying their virtues, indeed they are Imams except with what they have mistaken about. This is the case with Sayyid - rahimahullah. His mistakes did not strike the roots of his curriculum or his unification of laws to none other than Allah (ruling by what Allah has sent down) and his call on people to worship their Lord.

The rule which is to be decided in cases like these should be benefited from the words of Allah - ta`aala - when He says: "They ask you [O Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam)] concerning alcoholic drinks and gambling. Say: 'In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit.'" [5] Indeed, whoever accomplishes whatever needs to be accomplished from the original and correct religion (usool ad-deen) afterwards his complete curriculum will be examined, if his mistakes outnumber his right ones and if its evil wins over its benefit, then indeed his sayings must be ignored, his books should be closed and mustn’t be read. Concerning this matter and upon this, the real truth concerning Sayyid - rahimahullah - is that his errors are practically unknown in comparison to his virtues and his defense over "Laa ilaaha illa Allah," especially since he was able to attain his true original beliefs. If he has committed some minor mistakes, we won’t deny them upon him and may Allah have mercy on him.

In conclusion, nothing remains except for me to say that I consider that Sayyid - rahimahullah - is represented by the saying of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam): "The best of all martyrs are Hamzah (ibn Abdul-Muttalib) and a man who stood before an unjust leader, commanding him to do right and avoid evil, so the leader killed him." [6] We also count that Sayyed - rahimahullah - has qualified for this rule, which says that he said the word of truth in front of a leader, who killed him for it…and I will say some of his words - rahimahullah - before his execution, when one of the officers was surprised with the happiness Sayyed Qutb showed when he heard about his "Shahaadah" execution verdict and was shocked because he did not sadden or get depressed or collapse, so he asked him: "You think that you will become a martyr, but what does a martyr mean to you?" He replied - rahimahullah: "A shaheed is someone who presents a testament (shahaadah) with his soul and blood that his faith and religion is dearer to him than the world. For this reason, he exerts his soul and life in redemption to the religion of Allah."

We ask Allah to have mercy upon him because of the sayings and situations that any truth knower will doubt came from a heart that is filled with love for Allah, love for His Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) and love of sacrifice for His Religion. We ask Allah to have mercy on us and to forgive us and him.

May Allah give peace and blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad, and all of his family and companions.

Narrated by: Hamood bin `Uqlaa ash-Shu`aybee
16Jumaada I 1421 H ( 16August 2000 CE)

[AbuAlAbbas]

In regards to bin baz

Shaikh ‘Abdul-Azeez Ibn Baz [Rahimahullaah]

Some parts of the book of Sayyid Qutb ‘at-Tasweer al-Fannee fil-Qur’aan’ were read to him such as his speech about Moosaa - ‘alaihis-Salaam - upon whom he said: "Let us take Moosaa - as the example of the leader of excitable nature - and this excitable impulse quickly passes away and he regains his composure, as is the case with the excitable folk." Then he said with regard to the Saying of Allah - the Most High - "Fa as-ba-hu fil madinati kha bi fan..." :- "This is the description of a well known state: the restlessness or fear of one expecting evil at every turn - and this is the characteristic of the excitable folk." [‘at-Tasweer al-Fannee fil-Qur’aan’: p.200,201,203. 13th ....]


So the Shaikh replied to this: "Mockery of the Prophets is apostasy in its own."[*]

And is was said to him that Shaikh Rabee’ al-Madhkhalee has written a refutation of Sayyid Qutb, so the Shaikh said: "Rebuttal of him is good."

[*] And unfortunately the Qutubi movement clothing itself as Salafiyyah, has not only gone to the extremes in Takfir but has also fallen into the extremes of Irjaa’ in that it seeks to defend, nay even promote, the books and writings of their leaders and mentors which contain statements of disbelief and apostasy (examples will be given in Part 2, inshaa’allaah). Shaikh Rabee’ bin Haadee said, commenting upon Imaam al-Albani’s description of the Qutubiyyah as "The Khawarij of the Era", that "it is more befitting that they be called Murji’ah of the Era before they are called Khawarij of the Era". Refer to al-Asalah (Vol. 24)

Source: During a lesson of Shaikh ‘Abdul - ‘Azeez ibn Baaz - hafizahullaah - in his house in Riyaadh 1413H, ‘Minhaajus-Sunnah tapes of ar-Riyaadh

A section of the book "Kutub wa Shakhsiyaat" (p.242) was read out to the Shaikh and in which Sayyid Qutb accuses of Mu’awiyah and Amr Ibn al-Aas of lying (kadhib), deception (ghish), treachery or trickery (khadee’ah), hypocrisy (nifaaq), and taking bribes (rishwah).

So he replied: "These are repugnant words!! These are repugnant words. Revilement of Mu’awiyah and of Amr Ibn al-Aas. All of this is repugnant and evil words. Mu’awiyah and Amr and whoever was with them made ijtihaad and erred[*], and those who perform ijtihaad and erred then may Allaah pardon us and them.

[*] Shaikh Salih al-Fawzaan in checking through this made the comment, "Being resolved that they erred is not clearly apparent, but if it was said, "They were mujtahidoon, if they were correct they have two rewards and if they erred they have one reward, yet their error is forgiven", it would have been much better and more just."

The questioner then said, "What about his statement that there is hypocrisy (nifaq) in them both, is that not takfir of them?"

Shaikh Ibn Baaz replied, "This is an error and a mistake which is not disbelief. For his revilement of some of the Companions or just one of them is evil (munkar) and sinfulness (fisq) and he deserves to be given exemplary punishment for it – we ask Allaah to pardon him – however, if he reviled most of them and declared them sinners then he would become an apostate, because they are the Carriers of the Revelation. When he reviles them then this means that he is reviling the legislation."

The questioner then said, "Should not these books in which these statements exist be forbidden?"

Shaikh Ibn Baaz replied, "It is necessary for them to be torn to pieces".
Then the Shaikh said, "Is this in a newspaper?"
The questioner said, "In a book, may Allaah be benevolent to you."
The Shaikh asked, "Whose book?"
The questioner said, "Sayyid Qutb…".
The Shaikh said, "These are repugnant words".
The questioner, continuing, "… in ‘Kutub wa Shakhsiyaat’"

Source: The cassette ‘Sharh Riyaad us-Saaliheen’ dated 18/7/1418H. Summary: Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) was asked, "The one who praises Ahl ul-Bid’ah, is he to be counted amongst them?" So he replied, "Yes, there is no doubt about this, the one who praises them is one who actually calls to them". [Cassette: Aqwaal ul-Ulamaa Fee Sayyid Qutb]

[AbuAlAbbas]

in regards to al-albani:

Shaikh al-Albani's Written Communication to Shaikh Rabee'
This was written after the Shaikh completed a reading of 'al-Awaasim Minal-Qawaasim' shortly before his death. And this is also an uncovering of that Qutubi who used some very old words of Shaikh al-Albani to defend Sayyid Qutb and his heretical writings. It is abundantly clear that at that particular time Shaikh al-Albani had not made a thorough study of all the works of Qutb and hence did not speak in criticism of him. However, when the affair became clear to him at the hands of Shaikh Rabee' then he wrote the communication below.


some quotes from the above written statement:

The Muhaddith and Imaam, al-Albani – rahimahullaah – said, commenting upon the book ‘al-Awaasim Mimmaa Fee Kutub Sayyid Qutub Min al-Qawasim’ of Shaikh Rabee’ bin Haadee, "Everything with which you have refuted Sayyid Qutb is the truth (haqq) and is correct (sawab). And it will become sufficiently clear from this refutation to every one who has read anything from "The Islamic Heritage" that Sayyid Qutb had no knowledge of the Usool (fundamentals) or the Furoo’ (subsidiary matters) of Islaam. So may Allaah reward you with the best of reward, O brother Rabee’ for fulfilling the obligation of explaining and uncovering his ignorance and deviation from Islaam."

[Hanbali]

Wa Alaykum as-Salam Brother Abu al-Abbas,

Unfortunately, my dear brother, you are using the tactics of SPUBs. Are you by any chance a supporter of Salafi-Talk and SPUBs?

What do I mean by tactics of SPUBs?

Well ,dear brother, it is a trick used by the trouble-makers and the mischief makers, whereby they quote certain passages and go to a shaykh and ask him "What do you say about someone who would say such-and-such?"

So they word their questions in this manner, instead of simply saying "What do you say about Sayyid Qutb?" Instead they say "What do you say about the one who says such-and-such" and then they would quote from Sayyid Qutb's book a passage with their own coloring of the text, without even informing the Shaykh of who said it.

Then the mischief makers make the final jump by saying "see, Shaykh Ibn Baz said such-and-such about Sayyid Qutb" even though he never said anything about Qutb specifically, but was rather asked a question in vagueness.

In fact, the trouble-makers have done this so much, that even Shaykh Rabee al-Madhkali has had enough of it! Shaykh Rabee Madhkali said the following:

Phone Calls From The West
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee

However, what we see is, that the questions that are directed to us, whether they are from Algeria or other than it, we do not know most of them [questioners] if not any of them. And there is one thing that saddens us, and it is that a question is asked “O Shaykh, what is the ruling on such and such?” So you (the Shaykh) answer, then the questioner runs off and says Shaykh so and so gave a ruling on so and so [from the people]. And this is from the worst forms of lying, it is not permissible. If you want to ask me about so and so then ask me about him with his name, it is either I know him and answer you, or I do not know him and so I will say “I do not know him.” Or there may be a benefit that I see and so I may not be able to speak about him, so I am excused.

But that you make my answer to your question in which you said a “What is the ruling of the one who says...” ‘Who’ (in the question) is a general question meaning ‘whomsoever says’, and this includes everybody, you go and say: “The Shaykh meant so and so.”

This is a lie, and it is not permissible for you [to do this]. So this is what I find disappointing, and this is why I say, and I have said it before in more than one occasion, when I am called by the telephone, I say: “I do not answer questions like this.” Why? Because I know that they are the questions of Fitnah. They do not want the truth from these questions. If they wanted the truth they would have asked me: “So and so son of so and so says such and such.” If I know him I would answer, and if not I would say: “I do not know him.” And this does not harm me, nor does it decrease me in anything. And it does not decrease me if a person, who is a Thiqah (trustworthy) to me even if he was younger than me, was to come to me and I ask him: “What do you know of so and so?”, and so he answers and benefits me, and so I would reply according to what I was asked about. Does this decrease me [in status]? Not at all, and it is not a fault if I do not know so and so from the people.

However that you bring the speech of Shaykh so and so down upon so and so, this is not permissible, except if you took this saying of his from a book or a tape of his, and you say: “One who says such and such, and you mention him [by name] truthfully and with trustworthiness, without erasing or cutting [parts of his speech], then there is nothing wrong with this, and ill turn to this kind of question [and answer]. This is the correct way. But what we see during these times, especially in these past two years, then it is what I already mentioned to you [that has been going on].

And for this reason, I avoid answering questions over the phone, especially from the western countries, whether Europe in general, or France in specific or the Maghribee countries. No by Allaah! It is not because I fear so and so, or that I want what is with so and so, no, but it is because I know that the result of these questions is what I have already mentioned, and this is why I do not answer such questions at all.

And all or most of you know Muhammad ibn Haadee. By Allaah I do not fear anyone except Allaah jal wa ‘alaa, if something [in a certain issue] becomes clear to me ill say it, without fear. If I am wrong, then by Allaah I will take back what I said and I will tape it [the retraction], just as I tapped the first saying [which was incorrect]. Because with this [way], the first thing that I want is that Allaah forgives me, and this also will raise me [in status] in the eyes of the people, it will not decrease me. So what I want from my brothers is to know and understand this, and to give it its due right in thought.

And now because we started to avoid a lot of the evil from the likes of this of speech as I have already mentioned to you, we started to hear strange things. This one is a Mumayyi’, and this one is a Mutasaahil (too lenient/soft), and this one brings ruin/failure to Salafeeyah.

So these Aghbaar (those who are behind), became the ones that judge and evaluate the Mashayikh, and place them in different levels?!! And if you were to ask one of them: “When is the maf’ool put in front of the faa’il?” He won’t even know that! The Maf’ool, when is it put in front of the Faa’il (simplest Arabic grammar) He does not even know that! So the likes of these are to speak?!! It is not permissible for them! If you ask them about the smallest issues of the Deen, from the foundations of the Deen, that no one is excused to be ignorant of, he will start to stutter. So the likes of these are to evaluate the Mashayikh?!! This is from the calamities, and we ask Allaah As Sallaamah and Al ‘Aafiyah.

[Hanbali]

And dear brother, please read the fatwa of the esteemed Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, may Allah [swt] protect him from the slander of the slanderers! He was a member of the Hay'ah al-Kibaar al-'Ulamaa` .... surely you should heed his words.

By the way, dear brother, please note that we do not deny that Ash-Shaheed Qutb [ra] had his share of mistakes, nor we do deny that those mistakes should be corrected.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

You are a laughable fool. Why don't you go learn deen before you speak, boy?

You're such an idiot that you're attacking yourself. ALL Sunnis believe the same thing about rebelling against authority. Go learn your faith and BE SILENT till then.

Here is a fatwa from SunniPath, which is a non-Salafi Sufi site:

Doesn't this only apply if the leaders implement shariah? IE the leaders may be faasiqs in their private lives but when it comes to affairs of the state, that's a different matter?

[AbuAlAbbas]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

And dear brother, please read the fatwa of the esteemed Shaykh Ibn Jibreen, may Allah [swt] protect him from the slander of the slanderers! He was a member of the Hay'ah al-Kibaar al-'Ulamaa` .... surely you should heed his words.

By the way, dear brother, please note that we do not deny that Ash-Shaheed Qutb [ra] had his share of mistakes, nor we do deny that those mistakes should be corrected.

bin uthaymeen, and al-albani mentioned sayed qutb by name, so they knew who they were talking about. In regards to shaykh ibn jibreen thats another issue. I respect the shaykh ibn jibreen but he is not to be followed in this issue, and after reading what you posted (ibn jibreen saying qutb and al bana are scholars of islam) I dont think I will be taking anything from the shaykh anymore (inshAllah if you have a link to the fatwa in arabic, please post it or send it to me). With that said, sayed qutb is not looked at as a kafir.

Anyways inshAllah if you have time check out the works of abdulaziz bin rayis al-rayis, who is part of hayat kibar al ulama, he has given lectures on both qutb, hasan al bana, and salman al awda.

[Hanbali]

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

bin uthaymeen, and al-albani mentioned sayed qutb by name, so they knew who they were talking about.

You are conflating quotes. Whenever they mentioned Sayyid Qutb [ra] by name, they did not say anything other than he had mistakes which should be corrected. They did not hate Sayyid Qutb [ra] like SPUBs people. In fact, Shaykh Bin Baz [ra] interceded on Qutb's behalf, and Al-Albani [ra] called Sh. Rabee's book "jaahil".

Also, please dear brother, can you answer the question: do you like SPUBs? What is your view on SPUBs?

In regards to shaykh ibn jibreen thats another issue. I respect the shaykh ibn jibreen but he is not to be followed in this issue,

Brother, this is our view on a lot of scholars! But you guys don't believe in differing. You believe in condemning. Like this:

and after reading what you posted (ibn jibreen saying qutb and al bana are scholars of islam) I dont think I will be taking anything from the shaykh anymore

See how quickly you guys condemn scholars? Just based on one single view, suddenly you are willing never to take from this scholar EVER again!

As if the scholars never erred!

Take care dear brother.

[Abdul_Karim]

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

Najd was not part of the ottoman empire,

I already know this.

Originally Posted by AbuAlAbbas

so there wasnt a revolt against the ottomans.

The conquests of the first Saudi state weren't confined to Najd. Muhammad ibn Sa'ud's grandson, Sa'ud ibn Abdul-Aziz, conquered Makkah and Madinah. You'd be a fool to deny that Makkah and Madinah were part of the Ottoman Empire.

Originally Posted by Hanbali

In the red corner, we have Abu al-Abbas, representing the Madhkalis. In the blue corner, we have Abdul Kareem representing the Salafi-Jihadis, and in the gold corner, we have Hanbali representing the Surooris. To your corners gentlemen! FIGHT!

I'm not a Salafi-Jihadi. I'm not a Salafi at all, I'm a Maliki.

[AbuAlAbbas]

You are conflating quotes. Whenever they mentioned Sayyid Qutb [ra] by name, they did not say anything other than he had mistakes which should be corrected. They did not hate Sayyid Qutb [ra] like SPUBs people. In fact, Shaykh Bin Baz [ra] interceded on Qutb's behalf, and Al-Albani [ra] called Sh. Rabee's book "jaahil".

intercession doesn't mean that bin baz approved of qutb. And regarding al-albani, you might want to go back and read my post about that.

Also, please dear brother, can you answer the question: do you like SPUBs? What is your view on SPUBs?

I take and I leave from them

Brother, this is our view on a lot of scholars! But you guys don't believe in differing. You believe in condemning. Like this:

I didnt slander the shaykh nor anything, and I would have to see the actual fatwa in arabic. But like I said if the fatwa comes off exactly how it came off to me in english then yes I dont feel comfortable in taking from ibn jibreen. Hasan al bana is not a scholar, it is narrarated by his brother that hasan al bana used to sit in mawlid gathers saying things like the nabi is present, and he is here to forgive people, this is shirk al akbar.

See how quickly you guys condemn scholars? Just based on one single view, suddenly you are willing never to take from this scholar EVER again!

again, im an ant compared to mountains when comparing me with the shuyukh, so I wont go further into this subject. Except that I will say that qutb and al-bana are far from being scholars.

As if the scholars never erred!

scholars make errors on fiqh issues on other such issues, but when it comes to aqeedah there is no room for mistakes. And i'am not talking about ibn jibreen as I cannot speak anything against the shaykh

[AbuAlAbbas]

Originally Posted by Abdul_Karim

The conquests of the first Saudi state weren't confined to Najd. Muhammad ibn Sa'ud's grandson, Sa'ud ibn Abdul-Aziz, conquered Makkah and Madinah. You'd be a fool to deny that Makkah and Madinah were part of the Ottoman Empire.

Well you claimed that it was muhammad ibn abdul wahab who revolted in your previous statement

Mainly, because he is. How is what he's doing any different from Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab and Muhammad ibn Sa'ud's revolt against the Ottomans?

so again in regards to muhammad ibn abdul wahab, he never revolted against the ottomans.

[Hanbali]

Originally Posted by Abdul_Karim

I'm not a Salafi-Jihadi. I'm not a Salafi at all, I'm a Maliki.

Can you please answer the following questions:

1) Where is Allah [swt] ?
2) Do you do taweel when it comes to Allah's Attributes?

Thanks. Just a quick Aqeedah check.