Question: We want to present some principles to you, and we require some clarification by the answers, and whether they are in agreement with what Ahl us-Sunnah are upon of firmly established usool (foundations)?
1. "We correct (the mistake) but we do not disparage (the person, i.e. make jarh)."
Shaykh: "This a false principle (qaa'idah baatilah), which has no basis for it. It is binding to make jarh (criticise, censure) the people of falsehood."
2. "When you judge (upon someone), you are judged upon, and when you invite (him instead), then you are rewarded"
Shaykh: "This is a newly introduced matter which has no basis for it. It is necessary to pass judgement over Ahl ul-Bid'ah."
3. It is from justice and equity to mention both the good and evil points, and he used as an argument for the manhaj of al-Muwaazanah with the well-known hadeeth, "he spoke the truth but he is a great liar" (concerning the devil that taught aayat ul-kursee to Abu Hurairah).
Shaykh: "This is false speech also, for the Qur'aan mentions the evils of the Mushrikeen and it does not mention their good deeds. And Ahl ul-Bidah are treated like that also. That which is mentioned is his evil. His good deeds are not to be mentioned, because Allaah mentioned the evil of the enemies and He did not mention their good aspects."
Shaykh: "Are these the principles of Ar'oor?"
Shaykh: "These are principles that are criticised and which are false, and which are rejected upon him, and books have actually been written against him."
4. "It is permissible to declare someone to be in error, but reviling is forbidden".
Shaykh: "This (principle) is similar to "We correct (the mistake), but we do not criticise (the person)", it is the same principle."
Question: "[Adnaan Ar'oor] said, "Why is Imaam Ahmad not reproached for his takfir of the one who abandons prayer and yet Sayyid Qutb is reproached merely because some of these expressions occurred from him (i.e. his takfir of Muslim societies). So we say: This one performed takfir of the Muslim societies (i.e. Qutb), and yet Imaam Ahmad ý may Allaah have mercy upon him ý is not reproached despite his judgement of kufr against all these societies [meaning that the majority of them do not pray]."
So what is your comment upon this?"
Shaykh: "Imaam Ahmad is a scholar and a sage (erudite, sagacious) who knows the evidences and the manner of extracting proof from them and Sayyid Qutb is an ignoramus (jaahil) who has no knowledge or cognisance and neither does he have any evidences for what he says. Hence, equating between Imaam Ahmad and Sayyid Qutb is injustice (dhulm) [because Imaam Ahmad has many evidences from the Book and the Sunnah for the one who deliberately abandons the prayer whereas Sayyid does not have a single piece of evidence for his takfir of the Muslims in general. Rather the evidences are in opposition to what he says]."
Question: "Likewise he (Adnaan Ar'oor) says, "I do not know of anyone who has spoken about the affairs of Manhaj in the manner that Sayyid Qutb has spoken of them. And he is correct in the vast majority of what he has written." He (Ar'oor) was asked about this statement of his and he replied, "By the word minhaaj here I mean the issues of reform, elections and assassinations. And by "in his time" I mean the Fifties."
Shaykh: "He (Ar'oor) does not know because he is ignorant. As for us, then we know ý and all praise is due to Allaah ý that the scholars both prior to and after Sayyid Qutb, opposed him."
Question: "Adnaan says, "There is a trap in the name of da'wah to the manhaj of Ahl us-Sunnah, and to disparage the servants and to revile the servants on account of a single word or due to an ambiguous expression, and also a trap in the name of takfir, a trap which is called "takfir of the rulers" .
Shaykh: "This is meaningless speech, by which beautification of falsehood and defence of Ahl ul-Bid'ah is intended".
Question: [And his saying] "Whoever follows up all the causes of splitting, will find that the majority of them are to do with manners, and not to do with aqeedah or manhaj."
Shaykh: "Rather, causes in aqeedah and manners. But he desires to cover and protect them (i.e. the Innovators)".
Question: "What is your saying concerning him?"
Shaykh: "He, in his foundation, he is not a scholar. He came to Saudiyyah as a worker (employed), and then he openly manifested what is actually with him (of manhaj)."
Question: "Are his lessons to be attended or not?"
Shaykh: "We advise the Salafee youth to cut off from him and not to attend his lessons".