• That Ibn Jibreen invalidated and demolished the very root and foundation of the existence of the Leninist Takfiri da'wah (takfir and revolution), and that despite being deceived on the issue of the personalities of Qutb and Banna, he certainly was not with these people in their evil designs, doctrines of takfir, and deviant non-Islamic, secular methodologies.
  
  
• That if we take a kind stance towards him, he was not familiar with the misguidances and excesses of Sayyid Qutb and that he defended Qutb, upon lack of knowledge and clarity, whilst pointing out that some of the Scholars do not make this excuse for him because he was made aware of the truth through letters and writing and continued to defend the likes of Qutb and Bannaa despite these innovators falling into what amounts to major kufr in their statements of mockery of the prophets, wahdat ul-wujood, claiming the Prophet forgives, the Qur'an being created and so on.
  

quote:

So if it is said: Whey are an-Nawawi and IbnHajr excused and that which occurred from them, yet Sayyid Qutb and al-Bannaa and Mawdoodi are not excused, then the answer is from two angles: First: That there is a great difference between the two groups, for that which is with an-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr of firm grounding in knowledge, benefit for the Muslims actually negates and covers what occurred from them of errors. And the people of knowledge have explained these errors, have warned from them. Hence, the danger of that has ended by this notification by the people of knowledge. As for Sayyid Qutb and Bannaa, then they do not have a firm grounding and an abundance of  knowledge, and neither do they have abundance of action [that is in accordance with the Sunnah], and nor do they have the benefit brought about by the likes of an-Nawawi and Ibn Hajr and others from the senior scholars. Second: Ibn Hajr and an-Nawawi never called to their errors and nor did they call to partisanship, or the takfir of Muslim societies, or to uniting the ranks (of Ahl us-Sunnah) with the Rafidah (Shi'ah) or the Christians, or the Magians, or any of the astray sects. And the society was not harmed by their errors (i.e. those of Ibn Hajr and an-Nawawi), as opposed to those of Sayyid Qutb and Bannaa and others. For they (Qutb and Bannaa) never saw any difference between the futile, false doctrines (aqaa'id), rather doctrines of kufr, and between the correct and sound doctrines. And nor did they see any difference between a Raafidee, or a Christian and others and between a Muslim. And they brought about a lot of harm to the Muslims (by their methodologies) and did not actually rectify their condition. And many of the people have shown partisanship towards their ideas that oppose the Book and the Sunnah and they also show enmity towards Ahl us-Sunnah, and this is one of the greatest of harms.