Posted on

Dr. Al-Massari’s Statement That Infuriated the Wahhabis



[Dr. Mohammed Al-Massari] It’s a chaotic situation that is unbelievable, and they’re a nation that is content with being like sheep, and religious scholars who are ignorant about the fact that the Earth moves in a rotating motion, and who issue fatwas to them about obeying those in authority, and the ‘blessed state through which Allah has made Truth triumphant’, as stated by Ibn Baz. [unintelligible] There is a few intellectuals like Rashid Mubarak, May Allah bless his soul, he spent his whole life giving counsel and guidance, etc, and he once complained to me saying, “When there was a wave of pressures mounting on Saudi Arabia in the ’80s, everyone who wanted would found a newspaper in London, and they would attack Saudi Arabia. So, they would give them 2 or 3 million as hush money. 1, 2 or 3 million. So, in the Supreme Media Council— which Rashid was a member of— of course, now he’s deceased. [unintelligible].

So, a newspaper was founded, and he proposed. (Saudi Prince) Naif was the head of the Supreme Media Council. His death was a few years prior to Rashid’s. It’s said that America assassinated him in Geneva. Allah knows best, anyway. So, Naif proposed that to him, and Rashid said, “My advice is not to take that route at all. This route is nothing but blackmail, and it will become a way through which these people will continually gain money. Let them say whatever they want. What are we afraid of?” This man, Rashid, is supposed to be— or maybe he wanted to embarrass them. Rashid is not a stupid person, but he had a pretty good opinion of the (Saudi) state and its personalities, and he believe that much of what is claimed about them is not true, based on his own personal interactions with them. They would treat him with utmost respect, like I mentioned regarding the Nuclear Council.

When we came together with Rashid to meet (prince) Sultan, he would jump from behind his desk and run to the door to welcome us, as if we were the monarchs and he were the servant. These people are very shrewd. When they would meet the religious scholars, they would hug them and kiss their foreheads and hands. This is an art that the Al-Sauds master very well. So, Rashid could be— and regardless, Rashid belongs to the older generation, who are good-natured. I told you before about my father saying about king Hussein that, “He is an Arab hero. Listen to his sermons in flawless classical Arabic, and how he flies his plane like the Arabian horseman rode his horse in the old days.” This is the mindset of our religious scholars and the older generation. They thought good of these people.

If someone displayed flawless speech and was eloquent, it was easy for them to be fooled by them. They tend to be good-natured. And this occured through the cumulative effect of many eras, because they have been taught through many generations that those in authority are most knowledgeable about what is best, and that even if they were to appoint their son as successor, it was in the interests of the country and the people. All of that is lies. It’s not true. Read the history of the Ummayyds and the Abbasids, the stories that are told about them will turn one’s hair grey. This is found in the history books about the caliphs by Al-Suyuti and others, not in books written by modernist types like Al-Massari or Hakim Al-Mutayri. No. Read from the ancient ones.

For example, one of the Abbasid caliphs, after he was forced to abdicate, and one of his cousins was installed as caliph— one of the sons of his brother or cousin was installed as caliph in his place. They interrogated him, and said to him, “You have stashed away enormous amounts of wealth, etc, and if so, show us where it is.” They were negotiating with him. So, he said, “Yes, I buried it in such and such garden.” They went there— and he said he doesn’t remember where, and they dug up the whole garden and couldn’t find it. They said to him, “We didn’t find anything.” He replied, “I only wanted to ruin your garden.” Is that a human being? That’s a criminal, a beast, and he was the caliph. But, we have been taught that the caliph is looking after our interests, and we must trust him, etc, and things like that.

This has accumulated throughout the generations, and has become entrenched as a tradition that we need to uproot from our hearts, which will require a lot of work and effort. It will be uprooted, and all that Allah has made to happen at the hands of rulers in terms of their atrocities and crimes and bloodshed, it’s to wake the Muslim Community from its slumber. Either it wakes up, or goes extinct. Like Syria, if the people of Syria don’t wake up, they will be decimated. They will end up in a state of abject death and destruction, caught between the pincers of Daesh and the regime. But, [unintelligible] they should wake up and realize that it’s neither side. This is not the religion that was revealed upon Muhammad (pbuh).

It is imperative to return back to what was revealed upon Muhammad (pbuh), and not the sayings of Mohammed Al-Massari, or Ibn Taymiyyah, or Ibn Al-Qayyim, let alone Ibn Abdul Wahhad and others of his ilk that are extremist heretics, and not even (Imam) Malik or (Imam) Ahmad, but rather what came to us from Muhammad (pbuh), and this is available, by Allah’s grace, and it’s possible to go back to that. Now, the intellectuals and theoreticians are starting to go back to it and dig up its treasures. The era of revelation, it’s necessary to return back to it, and throw all the rest away, and stop holding this history in veneration. Someone wrote that we won’t be able to advance forward until we strip history of sanctity.

There is nothing sacred about history. It’s the history of humans that includes ups and downs, errors and criminalities and aggression. Sanctity is only for the a particular period and a particular person, who is Muhammad (pbuh), because he is infallible, and for a limited period of time. Even during the time of the Infallible, errors and mistakes occurred on the part of the Companions which are mentioned in the Quran, which rebuked them in that regard. It rebuked them for Badr, and it rebuked them for Uhud, and they were the very best of the Muslim Community, i.e. those that participated in Badr and Uhud, and despite this it rebuked them. So, what about those that came after them? There is no sanctity to history. Sanctity is only for Allah and his Messenger. This is where there is purity. In the case of the Messenger of Allah, it’s the infallibility, and in the case of Allah, it’s the inherent sanctity by virtue of the characteristics of divinity. That’s all.

This period came to its close with Allah’s words, “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you.” This was during the Farewell Pilgrimage, and the Messenger of Allah died a few months later. Or, at the most, at the time of the Messenger of Allah’s (pbuh) death. After that, there is no religion. What was not part of the religion before that, it can’t be part of the religion after that at all. Even the Pact of Umar, even if it was authentic, and that Umar had committed that horrible mistake, far be it from him that he would do so, it would be imperative to discard it, because it’s not part of the religion. The religion was completed. The religion according to which we worship Allah is the one that came to us in its entirety and perfection in the Quran, and multiply-narrated and authentic Sunnah (Prophetic tradition).

An example of that would be what happened with the Christians of Najran, when the Prophet (pbuh) wrote to them that, “they were entitled to keep their religion, churches and crosses, both that which were in good as well as in dilapidated conditions.” What does ‘dilapidated’ mean? I mentioned that once in a previous talk. What is meant by ‘the dilapidated one’? They were granted security, what is meant by ‘the dilapidated ones’? Even the dilapidated church was granted security? What does it mean that it had security? It means that they could rebuild it. Then, we find that the majority of jurists say that they are not allowed to rebuild churches. Why, my dear? What is the meaning of the Prophet’s (pbuh) words, “They are granted security for the crosses, both those which are in good conditions and those that are dilapidated.”?

What is meant by ‘the dilapidated ones’? What is meant by security for the dilapidated church which is in need of repairs? The security is that you repair it. Whereas, if you leave it falling apart, this is not security. It means the destruction of their dilapidated church. I mean, are you fooling us? Are we making fools of ourselves? This is what the religion was at the time of the Prophet (pbuh)’s death. That is, if we believe in Allah and the Last Day. But, if we don’t believe in Allah and the Last Day, there is no need for that. By Allah’s grace, we have philosophies in the West that are better than your philosophies, and better than Daesh. For sure, America is better than Daesh. Truth be told.

Why should we blame those that join the ranks of America? We blame them on the basis that they joined the unbelievers who are at war with Muslims, and this is alliance with the unbelievers, which is an open apostasy. This is why we blame them, because Muhammad (pbuh) is the Messenger of Allah. That’s all. We don’t blame them because of worldly interests. In terms of worldly interests, America is more kind to them and better than– with America, they have to submit a little more than the submission of the American people. Even this submission is bearable, better than the submission of the Arab Muslims to their rulers. This is what we witness in the areas that are under American control, and the type of subjugation that it practices on the people is less vicious, violent and brutal than their former rulers. See for yourselves. In Iraq and elsewhere, and in Afghanistan. We have to wake up, because this is a major problem. We have to.