|| Topic: Al-Imaam Ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) criticized the Ikhwaanees
Joined: Oct 2002
س28 : سماحة الشيخ حركة ( الإخوان المسلمين ) دخلت المملكة منذ فترة وأصبح لها نشاط واضح بين طلبة العلم ، ما رأيكم في هذه الحركة؟ وما مدى توافقها مع منهج السنة والجماعة؟ |
ج28 : حركة الإخوان المسلمين ينتقدها خواص أهل العلم؛ لأنه ليس عندهم نشاط في الدعوة إلى توحيد الله إنكار الشرك وإنكار البدع ، لهم أساليب خاصة ينقصها عدم النشاط في الدعوة إلى الله ، وعدم التوجيه إلى العقيدة الصحيحة التي عليها أهل السنة والجماعة . فينبغي للإخوان المسلمين أن تكون عندهم عناية بالدعوة السلفية ، الدعوة إلى توحيد الله ، وإنكار عبادة القبور والتعلق بالأموات والاستغاثة بأهل القبور كالحسين أو الحسن أو البدوي ، أو ما أشبه ذلك ، يجب أن يكون عندهم عناية بهذا الأصل الأصيل ، بمعنى لا إله إلا الله ، التي هي أصل الدين ، وأول ما دعا إليه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في مكة دعا إلى توحيد الله ، إلى معنى لا إله إلا الله ، فكثير من أهل العلم ينتقدون على الإخوان المسلمين هذا الأمر ، أي : عدم النشاط في الدعوة إلى توحيد الله ، والإخلاص له ، وإنكار ما أحدثه الجهال من التعلق بالأموات والاستغاثة بهم ، والنذر لهم والذبح لهم ، الذي هو الشرك الأكبر ، وكذلك ينتقدون عليهم عدم العناية بالسنة : تتبع السنة ، والعناية بالحديث الشريف ، وما كان عليه سلف الأمة في أحكامهم الشرعية ، وهناك أشياء كثيرة أسمع الكثير من الإخوان ينتقدونهم فيها ، ونسأل الله أن يوفقهم ويعينهم ويصلح أحوالهم
Question: Oh noble Shaikh, the movement ?Al-Ikhwaan ul-Muslimoon? has entered the Kingdom (Saudi Arabia) some time ago and it now has some clear activity among the students of knowledge. What is your view regarding this movement? And what is the extent of its agreement with the methodology of the Sunnah and the Jamaa?ah?
Answer: The movement, ?Al-Ikhwaan ul-Muslimoon?, has been criticized by specialists of the people of knowledge because they are not active in the call to the Tawheed of Allaah, rejecting Shirk and rejecting the innovations. They have special methods which are made deficient by their lack of activity in calling to Allaah, and their lack of directing to the correct ?Aqeedah (creed of beliefs) which Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa?ah is upon. Thus, it is necessary for the Ikhwaan ul-Muslimoon to give some attention to the Salafi Da?wah, and the call to Tawheed. And they must give attention to the matter of rejection the worship of graves, being attached to the dead, and seeking aid from the people in the graves, such as Al-Husayn, or Al-Hasan, or Al-Badawee, or whatever is similar to that. They must have some concern for this extremely fundamental principle. They must give concern to the meaning of Laa ilaaha illallaah (None has the right to be worshiped but Allaah), which is the foundation of the religion. And the first thing that the Prophet (sallallaahu ?alayhi wa sallam) called to in Makkah was At-Tawheed. He called to the meaning of Laa ilaaha illallaah. So many of the people of knowledge have criticized the Ikhwaan ul-Muslimoon for this matter. That is their lack of activeness in calling to the Tawheed of Allaah and making religious acts solely for Him alone, and their lack of rejecting what has been introduced by the ignorant people of being attached to the dead and seeking their aid, and making vows to them and slaughtering animals for them, which is major Shirk (association of partners with Allaah). Likewise they criticize them for their lack of concern for the Sunnah; the Sunnah is to be followed. They also have a lack of concern for the Noble Hadeeth (i.e. study and application of Hadeeth), and what the Salaf of the Ummah were upon in reference to religious laws. And there are many (other) things. I hear a lot from the brothers that they criticize them for. And we ask Allaah to help them, aid them and correct their affairs.
Al-Imaam ?Abdul-?Azeez bin ?Abdullaah bin Baaz (rahimahullaah)
Translated by Aqeel Walker
قال الشيخ ابن باز الطائفة المنصورة هي الفرقة الناجية هما واحدة هم أهل السنة و الجماعة و هم السلفيون
Joined: Aug 2002
The following has been taken from a thread on www.spubs.com (forum section) explaining the aqidah of wala and bara with Ikhwaan. |
Hassan al-Bannaa said in one of his sermons, as mentioned by Abbaas as-Seesee (Fee Qaafilatil-Ikhwaan il-Muslimeen 1/286-287), who is one of the great leaders of Ikhwaan:
|And the movement of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen is not a movement of a particular group that is opposed to a particular aqeedah amongst the variuos aqaa'id (beliefs) and nor a religion amongst the various religions, since the perception which is firmly established in the souls of its leaders is: That the fundamental principles of the Risaalaat (i.e. his writings and directives and teachings) have become threatening to the Ilhaadiyyah and Ibaahiyyah (i.e. Atheists etc.), and it us upon the believing men of all these religions that they should stand shoulder to shoulder and direct all of their effort and striving to saving humanity from these two advancing dangers. And al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen do not hate the foreign residents in the Arab and Islamic lands, and nor do they conceal any evil towards them, until even the Jews and the Christians who are resident. There is nothing between us and them except good attachments. As for their involvement in assisting the groups of Zionists in Palestine, with all the various types of assistance, then it is necessary for them to realise that this crooked and erroneous approach has made them lose sympathy."|
And also in the same book (1/205), as-Seesee explains that one of the Christian Copts, Pope Anbaa Yoosaab the Second, one of the Patriarchs, sent a letter to Hassan al-Bannaa, offering his best wishes and and "Happy Eid".
|So al-Bannaa replied back to him, "Respected Patriarch, al-Anbaa Yoosaab the Second, Pope and Patriach of the Maraqasiyyah Church, - in my name and name of al-Ikhwaan - I thank your patriarchal self your kind and generous gesture and your good wishes in relation to the blessed Eid al-Adhaa, and every year, and your patriarchal self and the rest of the noble residents (of this land, i.e. the other Copts) are with goodness (kullu aammin wa ghabtikum wal-muwaatinoona al-a'izzaa bi-kulli khairin)".|
And also in the same book (1/208-212) as-Seesee quotes a dialogue that took place in the newspapers between Ihsaan Abdul-Quddoos and Hassan al-Bannaa, and in it there occurs:
|I (Ihsaan Abdul-Quddoos) said, "Do you not believe that your backward da'wah will cause many factional splits amongst us which the English will use in order to enter into our affairs, as has happened now in India?. He (Hassan al-Banna) replied, "Verily Islaam has advised goodness with the People of the Book, and we incite and encourage every single movement that is based upon the correct foundation of the religion, and all of the religions are actually in agreement with respect to their foundations, and their examples are lofty ones. And our relationship, until this day, has been a good one with many of those who are residents of this nation, the people of the other religions".|
Hasan al-Hudaibee is the second supreme Murshid for the Ikhwaan (after al-Bannaa). As-Seesee (another one of their great leaders) brings a photo in his aforementioned book (2/46) in which there is Hasan al-Hudaibee and some others, and under this picture it is written:
|"The Ikhwaan in Alexandria celebrate the remembrance of the Birthday of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and in the picture the Ustaadh, the Murshid is seen and on his right is the delegate of the Church"|
Umar at-Tilmisaanee is the third supreme Murshid for the Ikhwaan (after al-Hudaibee). He said in his book "Dhikriyyaat Laa Mudhakkiraat" (p.23)
|"And I left towards a practical life, so I spent some time in study in the library of one of the barristers in al-Atabah al-Khuduraa, his name was Ibraaheem Bakk Zaki, and he used to be a judge (qaadee)... and perhaps this step which was not actually intended, by which I began my working life, practical life, actually indicates that I am far away from the ideology of partisanship (ta'assub), and from saying that "this one is a Muslim" and "this one is a Christian". These types of ideas and meanings never ever entered into my mind. And I do not know, has Shaytaan entered these ideas and kindled by way of them them, in the rule of Sadat, factional fitnah (i.e. party strife). Allaah knows that there is not fitnah here, and nor is there any factionalism here. Everyone is Egyptian, he worships with his religion, without any inteference (upon others), and he proceeds upon his way and endeavour without any impediments, and he lives his life in a tranquil, easy way..."|
And Sayyid Qutb said in "Diraasaat Islaamiyyah" (p.13-14)
|"And the message of Islaam was actually a revolution against the Taaghoot (false god) of religious bigotry, and this was ever since it announced the (right of) the freedom of belief (hurriyat ul-i'tiqaad), in its greatest form, "There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. (Al-Baqarah 2:256), "And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you then compel mankind, until they become believers. (Yunus 10:99). So it shattered the Taaghoot (false god) of religious partisanship, so that it may replace it with absolute freedom (as-samaahah al-mutlaqah), nay, that protection (himaayah) of the freedom of belief, and the freedom of worship, should become obligatory upon the Muslim for the people of other religions in the Islamic land...."|
He also said, in "Nahwa Mujtama' Islaamee" (p.106)
|"For Islam does not desire the freedom of worship for its followers only, rather it affirms this right for all the different religions and it tasks the Muslims to fight and defend this right for all people and it [even] allows them to fight under this flag, the flag which guarantees the freedom of worship for the adherents of all other religions and by this it confirms that it (Islaam) is a worldly organisation (providing) freedom - everyone is able to live in its shade, in safety, enjoying their religious freedom - having equality with the Muslims and having the protection of the Muslims."|
And he said, "adh-Dhilaal 1/292" in explanation of 2:256
|"Verily, the freedom of belief is the very first of the rights of a human, by which his being described as a human is established (i.e. he is a human because has the right of the freedom of belief), hence, the one who takes away the right of the freedom of belief from a person, then he takes away his humanity away from him, from the very beginning, outset. And alongside this freedom of belief, there is also the freedom of calling to one's belief (hurriyat ud-da'wah lil-aqeedah), and the right to be safe from harm and fitnah. Otherwise, (i.e. without this), it is merely freedom only in name, it has no meaning or expression in outward life..."|
Mustafaa Sibaa'ee (one of the main figureheads and leaders of Ikhwaan), he says in "Ma'rakah ad-Dustoor", as occurs in the magazine "Hadaarat ul-Islaam", the special edition on the life of as-Sibaa'ee (p.117)
|"Objection of the Christian Groups: It is become clear from what we have read from the heads of the Christian groups, and from what we have heard from them, that their objection can be placed from two angles: |
1. That the meaning of "the religion of the state is Islaam" is that the laws of Islaam will be applied upon Muslims and Christians, and since Christians have their beliefs, rules and personal affairs, which differ from Islaam, then how can they be forced to accept the laws of Islaam?!
And this erroneous understanding is replied to from numerous angles: the most important of them are:
That Islaam respects Christianity as a heavenly religion and it allows its people the freedom of belief and worship, without intefering in any of their affairs. As for their personal affairs, then it does not face them at all, and it is not possible for any laws that oppose their Sharee'ah and their (religious) observations to be applied upon them. And the rulings of Islaam in this regard are very claer, and the books of (Islamic) legislation are in our own hands, as well as the historic occurrences, which none can reject except the arrogant one.
And the Christians have lived with the Arabs ever since the era of Islaam, until they enjoyed the (freedom) of their aqeedah and ibaadah, and their personal affairs were not entered into by the state and nor the government, in those times in which the rule was for Islaam specifically. So how can it be thought now that the rulings which oppose their religion will be applied upon them, while we are in a parliamentary, people's state, the judgement is for the people (al-hukm feehaa lish-shu'ab), which is exemplified in its Muslim and Christian representatives?
And we add to this, that alongside Islaam's respect for everything we have mentioned, then we did not suffice ourselves with mentioning this in the dustoor (law), rather, we demanded that the dustoor textually states the respect, veneration of the divinely revealed religions, and their holiness and the respect of the personal affairs of all the adherents of all religions.
So how can it occur in the mind, after all of this that there is a danger for the aqeedah of the Christians, and their personal affairs?
2. That the meaning of "the religion of the state is Islaam" is to have enmity towards other religions, and to belittle the rights of the non-Muslims, and looking at and treating them in a different way to the adherents of the main religion. And this is also an exaggerated error.
For Islaam is not a religion that is enmitous to the Christians, such that there should be any text that specifies enmity towards it. Rather, it acknowledges it, and respects our sayyid, al-maseeh, alaihis-salaam. Rather, it is the only religion from all the religions, that acknowledges Christianity, and which venerates its Noble Messenger and his mother. And the Noble Quraan has ordered its followers to believe in all the Prophets included amongst them is Eesaa (alaihis salaam). So where then is the enmity and where is the dispute between Islaam and Christianity?
Is there not in the text, that Islaam is the chief religion of the state, that this also includes that Christianity is also a chief religion of the state, by consideration of the fact that Islaam acnkolwedges it and respects it?
And as for the claim of belittling the Christians and distinguishing them from the Muslims, then where is this distinction? Is it in the freedom of choosing the aqeedah? And Islaam respects all of the beliefs, and the dustoor, will actually guarantee the freedom of beliefs for all of the residents (i.e. the dustoor of the Ikhwaan).
Or is it in the residential rights and the equality in the obligations. Islaam does not differentiate between a Muslim and a Christian with respect to them. And nor does it give a Muslim a greater right in the state, over and above the Christian. And the dustoor (law) will textually state the equality of all the residents with respect to all of the obligations. I shall put in front of all the readers and in front of all of the offspring of the societies, the text devised in this regard, so that they can see, after all this what fear is there from it and what swindle or fraud is there against the Christians in it:
1. Islaam is the religion of the state
2. The heavenly religions are respected and revered
3. The personal affairs of all the religious factions will be protected and maintained
4. The residents are all equal with respect to the obligations, nothing will come in between any resident and between his taking even the highest position of authority in the state, on account of his religion, or ethnicity, or his language (i.e. anyone can take any position of authority, until even the head of the state).
Verily, I ask the just people, all of them, and especially, the people of these brotherly factions. When this is what the text includes that the deen of the state is Islaam, and that it also includes all these things, then where is there any fear, and where is there any swindling? And where is the distinguishing of the Muslims (i.e. giving them preference), and where is the belittlement of others (i.e. of other religions)?"
Muhammad al-Ghazaali said in his book "Min Hunaa Na'lam" (p.53), as has been quoted by Uthmaan Abdus-Salaam Nooh, in his book "Tareeq Ilaa Jamaa'at ul-Umm" (p.136)
|"There are certain foundations for the uniting together of those who affiliate to the religions into a single plain, and these (foundations) unite between a Jew, Christian and Muslim in that they are a brotherhood, exactly the same as each other (sawaa bi sawaa'in)."|
He also says in the same source, (p.66)
|"And we love to stretch out our hands and to open our hearts and also our ears to every single call that brings affection (closeness) between the religions, and which brings them closer, and which mentions them by way of their being divine (heavenly)." and then in another place (p.150) he says the same thing and adding, "... and that the causes of dissension (shiqaaq) between the adherents (of these religions) are removed."|
He also said in the same book (p.53)
|"We are at ease with our hearts in working to establish unity between the Cross (Christianity) and the Crescent (Islam). As for those who are arguing about the relationships between the ethnicities of the Egyption populace, then they are a group of people about whose taqwaa cannot be trusted in, and nor that they actually seek the face of Allaah!"|