Sayyid Qutb/Hassan Al-Banna

[Ibn Al-Khattab]

Assalaam-alaikum,

Ive been having a few discussions lately with some brothers about these two. Some brothers have defended these whilst others have been very critical of these two. One brother I recall having a discussion with said it was impermissable to read any of the works of these two as they were refuted by the ulama like Shaikh Bin Baz, Uthaymeen, Albani (may Allah have mercy on all of them) due to the heresies of Qutb and Banna.
I then mentioned that I came across some quotes in which Bin Baz, Albani etc praised Sayyid Qutb's works and so on. The brother then replied that they praised Qutb's/Banna's works ages ago before their deviancies were found out, after which Bin Baz etc warned people to stay away from the likes of Qutb and Banna etc. Not only that, but Banna was a sufi and was a student of Al-Afghani, who was a sufi propagator. Not only that, even ive read from sources that Afghani was a freemason, and the sufis have never denied this claim. The issue then went onto Shaikh Safar/Salman and this brother also had the same opinion saying these two were praised before but afterwards were spoken against by the kibaar due to their deviancies.
I wanted to know, what is our position regarding Qutb and Banna? Ive never read any of their works, but are they from the ahle-al-bidah? Are we not supposed to keep our distance from the ahle-al-bidah? Are ikhwane-muslimeen a masonic conspiracy group, although the followers etc may be sincere, the leaders of these groups can be agents to disunite the muslims? Im asking these questions cos the brother made these points to me.
Although I know other brothers have been moderate regarding these two, cos they say that these people werent scholars but merely islamic thinkers and had errors. However, another point raised is that didnt Qutb or Banna insult/mock Musa (as) and Uthman Ibn Affan (ra)? If that is the case, doesnt this constitute major deviancy if not kufr akbar? If Banna or Qutb did mock Musa (as) and Uthman (ra), shouldnt we distance ourselves from their influence or works as they have serious deviancies? If anyone can shed some light on this matterm pls do. Jazakallah khair.

Wassalaam

[sonofadam1975]

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Office of the Presidency of Islamic Research and Legal
Verdicts

Question:
Some youth call Shaykh Sayyid Qutb a heretic and prohibit the reading of his books, and they say a similar statement regarding Hasan al-Banna, as they also say regarding some of the scholars that they are Khawarij. Their argument is that [they do this] in order to 'expose the errors [of these men] to the people,'. even though [these youth] are until now [only] students [of knowledge]. I hope for a response so that doubt may be removed from us and others, [and] so that this [phenomenon] will not spread.

Response:
All praise belongs to Allah alone. To proceed: It is impermissible to [unjustly] call the Muslims heretics or wicked as is evidenced by the statement of the Prophet SAW "Whoever says to his brother 'O enemy of Allah,' and he is not such but that it returns back to him." While in [another] hadith 'Whoever calls a Muslim an infidel it returns back to one of them.' While in another hadith: "A man passed by another while he was doing a sin and he said to him, 'By Allah, Allah will not forgive you.' So [Allah] said: 'Who is he who can pass judgment on my behalf that I will not forgive so and so, I have forgiven him and have nullified your deeds.'"

With this I say, Sayyid Qutb and Hasan al-Banna are among the scholars of the Muslims and among the people of da'wa. Allah has brought benefit by them and through them He has guided many people. They both have efforts [for Islam] which should not be denied. For this reason Shaikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz interceded on behalf of Sayyid Qutb when the order for his execution was given. [Ibn Baz] was gentle in his intercession, but President Gamal [Abdel Nasser] did not accept [Ibn Baz's] intercession, may Allah send upon him [i.e. Abdel Nasser] what he deserves. When both men [i.e Hasan al-Banna & Sayyid Qutb] were killed, each was referred
to as a martyr, as each was killed unjustly. This is borne witness to by those close [to them] as well as by the general public. As it was widely spread in the papers and books without anyone ever objecting. Moreover, the scholars have received their books [with acceptance]. No one has attacked them for more than the [last] twenty years. If some [heresy proceeded] from them, then [these mistakes] are
similar to an-Nawawi, as-Suyuti, Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn 'Atiyah, al-Khatabi, al-Qastalani and the likes of many of them. I have read what Shaikh Rabi al-Madkhali has written in his refutation of Sayyid Qutb and I found that he has placed statements where they do not exist. For this reason Shaikh Bakr Abu Zaid, may Allah perserve him, refuted him. Likewise, [al-Madkhali's] unjust attacks of Shaikh 'Abdur-Rahman ['Abdul-Khaaliq] and his [twisting 'Abdur-Rahman 'Abdul-Khaaliq's words] in order to find errors which would make ['Abdur-Rahman 'Abdul-Khaaliq appear] misguided, even though [Shaikh Rabi] befriended him for a lengthy period of time and he never found any such errors [in the past].

And the eye of pleasure sees every fault insignificant,
But the eye of hatred always finds fault.

Dictated by
Abdullah ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Jibreen
26/2/1417 AH

[Ibn Al-Khattab]

Assalaamu-alaikum,

Jazakallah khairun for your reply aakhi. I have read that before, and if I put his forward to the brother I was discussing with, he will ask me for a reference for this fatwa. If possible aakhi, can you please give me the reference for this fatwa or the source where I can obtain this (arabic or english)?
Cos I already tried bringing my points forward regarding sayyid qutb to sum brother but he said the statements im making were made by scholars age ago before the heresies of qutb were found out. And the truth is aakhi, I don't have any references to show where the kibar ulama have defended sayyid qutb or hassan al-banna, I just quote what ive read on websites. Whereas this brother has actually given me references in arabic which show that scholars have warned against qutb and banna (although i havent checked these yet due to a busy schedule).

Wassalaam

[MosDef]

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)

[Ibn Al-Khattab]

Assalaamu-alaikum,

Brother Shaukat, you are either clueless about the affairs of the deen or your just sympathetic with deviants cos you dont practise wala and bara for the sake of Allah (swt).

Before judging a scholar, one must read his/her writings – instead of what other ‘scholars’ have to say about him.

We might be able to make judgements to an extent, but then theres no need for ulama is there if we are going to make our own judgements just by reading up books. Thats why hadeeth scholars relied upon the opinions of reliable scholars etc to find out about an individual's character etc in order to conclude whether narrations coming from that individual should be accepted or not. For example, when Shaikh Albani (rahimahullah) gives a particular hadeeth a criteria or ranking, he relies upon the words of scholars of ahle-sunnah who knew the narrators or were familiar with them. Shaikh Albani would not randomly just say "this hadeeth is saheeh/da'eef cos I think it is", he would bring his evidences forward as to why a hadeeth is so and so and explain the narrator's personality as to whether he is thiqah or manqar in narrations. Therefore, we have to rely upon the scholars of ahle-sunnah to explain to us the maters of deen and innovation etc.

Sayyid Hassan al-Bana, Sayyid Qutb, and Imam Khomeini (May Allah bless all of them) belonged to this category – And that’s why they were hated by those ‘ulema’ who never stop paying ‘lip services’ to Islam, but when it comes to scarify their lives by saying the ‘La illa Allah’ in front a tyrant military dictator or a US-puppet king; they would take cover behind slandering those who displayed that courage.


You are defending Khomeini, the mushrik apostate who slandered ahle-al-bait and the sahabah (ra). For you to even ask for Allah's blessing for this deviant and disciple of Iblis, it shows your ignorance of wala and bara. Khomeini declared apostasy upon Abu Bakr (ra), Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (ra), Uthman (ra) and many others. As for Sayid Qutb and Hassan Al-Banna, they have been refuted by the ulama, although they were praised by the ahe-sunnah ulama, but were refuted by the same ulama when Qutb and Banna's deviancies were clear and open for everyone to see.
And as for the ulama payig lip service to the tyrants, then you have not made it clear which ulama you are talking about, although I have a slight idea about what your likes are upon. People like you must be referring to Shaikh Bin Baz (rahimahullah), Shaikh Uthaymeen (rahimahullah) etc, cos when people say scholars who never speak out in front of the tyrant rulers, these ulama are always pointed at. But wasn't it these ulama who issued fatwas for Jihad against the kuffar in Afghanistan when the Soviets attacked. Wasn't it the students of Shaikh Bin Baz who also went to the battlefields to fight? Weren't the Mujahideen always seeking advice from Bin Baz and Uthaymeen?
Preaching people to make khurooj (rebellion) against the rulers doesnt achieve anything, and if you are so sure, then bring me one incident in the ISlamic history where rebllion has led to any good. Even recent examples in this era should be a lesson for us such as Egypt, Syria and Algeria where rebellion led to nothing but bloodshed, and in the end it resulted in nothing. Thats why Shaikh Uthaymeen (rahimahullah) numerous times spoke against rebellions and issued numerous fatwas against khurooj, as his verdicts were based upon wisdom and lessons from the past. Khurooj has never ever led to anything good, and lives ar elost for nothing with no end result in favour of the oppressed. For example, assasinating Anwar Sadat made the people of Egypt jump for joy as they thought Fir'awn was finished, but what did it lead to? Did they establish Sharia? They got somone worser than Sadat in the for of Hosni Mubarak, so that assasination was really worth it wasn't it?
I do not dispute what the rulers are doing is wrong, but this is a humilation from Allah (swt) and we will not be able to lift it even with swords, or even if we have the military power. Until we return to Tawheed and Sunnah and avoid all matters of bidah and shirk, we will remain in this state as the messenger (saw) told us about these matters that the Muslims will face and only rulership will return to the us on the method of the prophethood. Also, Allah (swt) staes in surah An-Noor that we worship him alone and do good deeds, which are a condition he has placed upon us in order to be victorious.
So regardless, of whether an individual speaks out openly against an opressor, it doesnt make him any better if he has many deviancies and aspects of kufr inside him. I use dto get emotional at all these things but until I started taking noweldge from the Ulama and sitting with the students of knowledge, the truth became clear. It is up to those who make wala and bara for the sake of individuals to stick to their hizbiyyah and defend the deviants, or cut off thier ties for the sake of Allah (swt) and sit with those who have studied or are studying with the ulama of salafiyyah.

Wasalaamu-alaikum Warahma-tullah

[Ibn Al-Khattab]

Assalaamu-alaikum to the believers,

A little knowledge is VERY dangerous thing!

Yes, that is right, but judging by your post it seems you have none at all. All the brothers and sisters of ahle-sunnah will bear witness to the fact that Khomeini is not a muslim. He has declared apostasy upon the companions (ra), he believes the Quran is incomplete and he also states that the imams possess knoweldge of he unseen. These issues are sufficient enough to put one outside the fold of Islam. You can refer to his books such as "Al-Kaafi" to get these statements of his.
And as for the Shia, which you claim to be, they have done nothing but create havoc in he ranks of ahle-sunnah. They are clear cut liars, and our ulama have refuted them numerous times. As a matter of fact, Shaikh Albani (rahimahullah) issued a fatwa which states that Khomeini is not a Muslim due to his beliefs. Brother and sisters on this messageboard, who are sincere, will admit to this fact. There is no unity between us and the Shia, there neve will be. But if you want specific references or fatwas of the ahle-sunnah scholars, you can ask me, I will inshallah post them up here when I get the time.
Again, you didnt read my post, you just blabbed emotionally, without any sharia references. Like I said, regardless of what goood a person does, it does not make him a great personality if he has innovations in his deen, as the Messenger (saw) warned against bidah and our scholars were harsh against the ahle-al-bidah. But with the bidah of Khomeini, which reaches the level of apostasy, I cannot believe any sincere MUSLIM would defend him or even speak good of him. Any tom, dick and harry can create a website and write waffle on it. I do not speak from desires and nr do I label apostasy upon anyone unless I have heard a scholar(s) verdict, and I am merely calling Khomeini a kaafir, because thats what our scholars have declared upon him.

I do believe that ‘sectarians’ like you could be the curse for which the Muslim Ummah has been paying for the last many centuries.

The biggest curse that hit the ummah was when the shias came about through that kaafir Jew Abdullah Ibn Sabah, the one who made the shias. From then on, the shias plotted against the ahle-sunnah in order to divide the ranks, just like the way the jews work behind closed doors. And I feel any brother or sister who has the slightest ounce of eeman will agree with me.

Wasalaam!!!

And (the unbelievers) Plotted and planned, And Allah too planned, And the best of planners Is Allah." (3:54)

[Ibn Al-Khattab]

Just a quick reply, as I dont have much time n my hands. As for the incident relating to Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) and Muawiyya (ra), then ahle-sunnah scholars have spoke about the matter and said that it was an error of ijtihad on behalf of Muawiya (ra) who wanted Ali (ra) to avenge the death of Uthman (ra).
As for Aisha (ra) etc being ahle-sunnah, then there was no titles given such as that to them but the generations that followed them called themself that to distinguish between themselves from the deviant sects. As for you being Shia-e-rasool or whatever, you are still a shia. Did Aish (ra) ever call herself sha-e-rasool? Ali (ra) call himself that? And you are definately not our greatest fear, as we only fear Allah (swt). Great superpowers have crumbled in front of the Muslims, you people are nothing as Ive dealt with the likes of you in my college and university.
As for fatwas, I can throw many in your face from our scholars. Regardless of how hard you try and plot and act sypathetic, the ahle-sunnah will never take you as one of their own!!!!

[Suhaib Jobst]

If I may make some comments as regards the first post:

1 - The Madkhali Salafis claim that Shaykhs Bin Baz and Albanee "refuted" Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb....but the reality is far different. Bin Baz interceded on Qutb's behalf in 1966, urging Nasser not to execute him. Albanee praised "In the Shade of Qur'an" and "Milestones". After hearing about Rabee's book, he regarded it as "jaahil" and advised him to abandon the project and not wipe out his good deeds.

2 - Banna was not a student of Jamal al-Afghani, for the simple fact that he was born in 1906 while Afghani died in 1897. He learned from Rashid Ridah, the Lebanese-born editor of "Al-Manar" who studied under Muhammad Abduh, the Mufti of Egypt, although he came to reject these deviances and was guided to Ahlus-Sunnah. Albanee (rahimahullah) praised Ridah and read "Al-Manar" during his youth.

3 - Both Afghani and Abduh were freemasons who sought a modernist Islam. In fact, Afghani was originally a Shi'ite from Iran who masked his origin by ascribing himself to Afghanistan! That they were freemasons has been confirmed by many Masonic sources, in both Europe and the Arab world. Among other things, Abduh was one of the first to put forward an allegorical/scientific interpretation of the Qur'an.

4 - I wouldn't call Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen a "masonic conspiracy group", although they have strayed from their original conception and have compromised many of their original principles. The Madkhali Salafis claim, against all evidence, that Afghani and Abduh were linked to the Brotherhood, although it was not founded until 1928 (Abduh died in 1905)! Banna wrote against the deviations of modernists.

5 - Hasan al-Banna never insulted or mocked either Musa nor Uthman, although there are claims that Sayyid Qutb did. I have not seen clear evidence, except the claims of Rabee', although the scholars (Bakr Abu Zayd and Hamud ibn Uqla ash-Shu'aybi) refuted this work and asserted that Rabee' lied upon Qutb and took his statements out of context.

6 - The Madkhalee Salafis claim that Hasan al-Banna was a Sufi grave-worshipper. But there is no evidence to back up these claims, except for his youth. There is no proof that he still committed such an act after founding the Brotherhood, and just peruse his writings to see how close his beliefs were to Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. I have read his statements condemning Sufi grave-worship and opposing Shirk in all its manifestations.

And Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) knows best.

Suhaib