Refuting the Tablīghī Principle of Belief in the ‘Good Word’: Their Abandonment of Negating Ṭaghūt in the Testimony of Faith
Shaykh Ḥammūd al-Tuwayjirī
Introduction: The Meaning of the ‘Good Word’
As for the ‘good word’ which is considered the first fundamental principle of the Jamāʿah al-Tablīgh, it is the testification of ‘there is nothing worshipped in truth except for Allāh’. It is a statement of taqwá, the firm, trustworthy handhold which is grasped by the true Muslim. As for the ones who choose not to grasp it, they are not considered Muslims even if they claim to be. There are two prerequisites that must be fulfilled when grasping this firm handhold which has been mentioned by Allāh in His saying:
فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِن بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىٰ لَا انفِصَامَ لَهَا
“Whoever disbelieves in Ṭāghūt and believes in Allāh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break.”
(Al-Baqarah, 2:256)
Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) said: “That is, whoever abandons all deities set up as rivals to Allāh, idols, and everything Shayṭān invites mankind to worship besides Allāh, opting instead to declare His oneness, worshipping Him alone and testifying that there is nothing worshipped in truth except for Allāh, then “he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold”. This means that he has remained firm and steadfast in this matter, remaining upon the most exemplary of ways and straightest of paths.”
He (رحمه الله) also said: Regarding His saying “then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break”; that is, he has held firm to this religion by taking hold of the strongest and most potent means which may be likened to a robust, unbreakable handhold. This handhold is itself actionable, definitively established, instated with extreme power and strength.” Then he (رحمه الله) narrates that Mujāhid said: “The “trustworthy handhold” is īmān” while al-Suddī said: “It is Islām”, and Saʿīd ibn Jubayr and al-Ḍaḥḥāk said: “It is the statement of ‘there is nothing worshipped in truth except for Allāh’”. Anas ibn Mālik also interpreted it saying: “It is the Qurʾān”. Sālim ibn Abī al-Jaʿd said: “It is to love and hate for the sake of Allāh”. Then, Ibn Kathīr said: “All of these opinions are correct and there is no contradiction between them”.
Contradiction to the ‘Good Word’ by the Tablīghīin: Not Stating Disbelief in Al-Ṭāghūt (False Deities)
If this (the preceding point) has been satisfactorily established, then know that the Tablīghīin have adopted merely the pronunciation of the testification of ‘there is nothing worshipped in truth except for Allāh’. Additionally, they have also completely abandoned explicitly stating disbelief in al-Ṭāghūt, actively preventing their followers from stating this disbelief. In fact, they have even made the abandonment of explicitly stating this disbelief a fundamental principle upon which they invite their prospective followers, as mentioned by Sayf al-Raḥmān ibn Aḥmad al-Dahlawī on page 11 of the treatise he wrote concerning them. In this vein, he also mentions on page 13 that among the fundamental principles of the Tablīghīin is: “to completely and absolutely negate all passages in the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah whose subject matter necessitates disbelief in Ṭāghūt, or forbidding evil. Despite using these passages when inviting others in a manner that is both incorrect and surprising. Among their fundamental principles is complete and staunch avoidance, uncompromisingly curtailing and preventing others with seriousness from ever explicitly stating disbelief in Ṭāghūt, or forbidding others from engaging in evil. They justify this stance by claiming that such acts bring about only stubbornness, never leading to the establishment of reform or uprightness.”
I previously mentioned these passages and have repeated them here in order to refute the manner in which the Tablīghīin have allegedly made the ‘good word’ one of their fundamental principles, but act in opposition to it. For believing in this ‘good word’ necessitates mandatory disbelief in Ṭāghūt while directing all forms of worship to Allāh alone with complete sincerity. Their opposition to this ‘good word’ manifests in several ways:
- Objection to the disbelief in Ṭāghūt.
- Prevention of openly and explicitly stating this disbelief while negating all passages in the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah that is related to disbelief in Ṭāghūt.
- Actively avoiding the mention of such passages, while uncompromisingly preventing others from openly stating this disbelief.
Any group who chooses to conduct themselves in this manner will have no portion of the firm, trustworthy handhold mentioned in the verse. As they have chosen to abandon one of the two prerequisites that must undoubtedly be incorporated for the one who makes this testification (of faith). In consideration of this, their alleged adoption of the ‘good word’ as one of their six fundamental tenets and principles is merely an unsubstantiated claim, devoid of any truth whatsoever.
On the authority of Abū Mālik al-Ashjaʿī who narrated from his father Ṭāriq ibn Ashyam ibn Masʿūd who said: I heard the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) say: “Whoever declares Allāh’s oneness and disbelieves in that which is worshipped besides Him will have his wealth and blood be considered sacred, and his account shall be settled by Allāh—the Exalted in Might”.1 This authentic ḥadīth is congruent with the aforementioned verse: “whoever disbelieves in Ṭāghūt and believes in Allāh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold,” and the saying of the Most High:
وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ
“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): “Worship Allāh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Ṭāghūt (all false deities, etc.i. e. do not worship Ṭāghūt besides Allāh).””
(Al-Naḥl, 16:36)
The Meaning of Al-Ṭāghūt
ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) said: “Al-Ṭāghūt is Shayṭān”.
Ibn Kathīr comments: “The interpretation of Ṭāghūt as Shayṭān is a strong position as this term is comprehensive of every evil practice incorporated by the people from the time of pre-Islamic ignorance. This includes idol-worship, seeking judgements and rulings from them, and seeking victory over others by means of them”.
Mālik said: “Al-Ṭāghūt is comprehensive of everything that is worshipped besides Allāh”.
Regarding this, Shaykh Sulaymān ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Shaykh al-Islām Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb said: “This statement is correct, but should exclude those who are not pleased to be the subject of worship besides Allāh”.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: “Al-Ṭāghūt is the object used by a servant to exceed the set boundaries with regards to either worship, emulation, or obedience. Thus, the Ṭāghūt of any people is the deity besides Allāh and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) from whom they seek rulings or judgements, or worship besides Allāh, or whose example is followed without knowledge or insight from Allāh, or to whom obedience is shown in acts that are not from His obedience. These are the various forms of Ṭawāghīt that exist in this world. If you were to contemplate them and the relationship of mankind to them, you will find that most people have completely turned away from the worship of Allāh—the Most High—towards the worship of Ṭāghūt, completely turning away from showing obedience to the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) towards showing subservience and obedience instead to Ṭāghut”.
If this point has been firmly established, then know that the naive, simpleton rabble who have attached themselves to the Jamāʿah al-Tablīgh follow the directives of their shuyūkh and commanders in the complete absence of insight or knowledge from Allāh. They follow their actions whilst being completely ignorant of whether it is considered an act of obedience to Allāh. This is a clear form of showing īmān in Ṭaghūt. In addition, their leaders also prevent these underlings from ever explicitly stating disbelief in Ṭaghūt anyways, making this prevention a fundamental tenet of their organisation to which they invite others. Such a description necessitates being far removed from those who have grasped the trustworthy handhold mentioned in the verse. While the ruling mentioned in the aforementioned ḥadīth of Abū Mālik al-Ashjaʿī regarding those who refuse to disbelieve in Ṭāghūt also undoubtedly applies to them.
So let the leaders of the Tablīghīin pay due care and attention to the true ramifications and stipulations of the two aforementioned verses and the ḥadīth of Abū Mālik al-Ashjaʿī and his father (رضي الله عنه). Let them cease their clear opposition to these verses and ḥadīth immediately, replacing this rejection of them with sincere repentance and obedience to Allāh and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم). Let them know that Allāh accepts true, sincere repentance regardless of the variety of sin perpetrated.
Contradiction to the ‘Good Word’: Engaging in Shirk
Among the clear contradictions of the Tablīghīin to the ‘good word’ they espouse is the habit of many of their leaders and shuyūkh of spending prolonged periods next to graves, awaiting visions, miracles and spiritual inundation from the companions of those graves. It has also been mentioned that they utilise talismans, incantations consisting of shirk, magic, and enlisting the aid of the Shayāṭīn for curing illnesses. To the extent that Mayān Muḥammad Aslam al-Bakistānī reported that Shaykh Zakriyyā—the most knowledgeable of the Tablīghīin, given the title of ‘the fragrant flower of India’ and the ‘incarnate blessing of this era’—used to assemble these charms and talismans daily. All of these actions consist of evident shirk, strongly contradicting their alleged belief in the ‘good word’. Furthermore, their adoption of clear actions of shirk while also making the ‘good word’ one of their fundamental tenets is an attempt to commensurate between contradicting opposites, while also showing their clear ignorance and misguidance.
Contradiction to the ‘Good Word’: Misinterpreting the Testification of Faith
Representative of their clear opposition to the ‘good word’ is the attempt to change the meaning of this testification which has been clarified in the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah. Its meaning is: to completely negate the right to be worshipped from everything except for Allāh, confirming and establishing this right as belonging to Him alone. While they claim that the meaning of this testification refers to the oneness of Lordship, interpreting this testification to mean that Allāh alone is the Creator, the Provider and Disposer of Affairs. This shows their extreme misguidance, ignorance of tawḥīd, and the degree of corruption attributable to their creed. For they have attempted to equivocate oneness in Lordship with oneness in the right to be worshipped. In this matter at least, they are unable to surpass even the people of ignorance to whom the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was originally sent. Rather, even the people of ignorance understood the oneness in the right to be worshipped better than the Tablīghīin. Since, when the disbelievers of Quraysh approached Abū Ṭālib to complain about the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم), claiming that he was insulting their gods, the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: “O uncle! I seek only to unite them on a single statement [of tawḥīd], which the Arabs may adopt as a religion, demanding by means of it the jizyah from non-Arabs [who remain non-Muslim]”. The Arabs were frightened by this, saying: “What is this statement?” He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) replied: “There is nothing worshipped in truth except for Allāh”. So they stood fearfully, ripping their garments, saying:
أَجَعَلَ الْآلِهَةَ إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا ۖ إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ
“”Has he made the Ālihah (gods) (all) into One Ilāh (God – Allāh). Verily, this is a curious thing!””
(Ṣād, 38:5)2
The Quraysh were more knowledgeable regarding the meaning of this testification than the Tablīghīin. For they knew that this statement necessitates all forms of worship being directed towards Allāh—the Most High—alone and none other than Him. For this reason, they became fearful of this statement, exclaiming: “Has he made the Ālihah (gods) (all) into One Ilāh (God – Allāh). Verily, this is a curious thing!” Despite them fully admitting that Allāh alone is their Creator, Provider, and Disposer of all Affairs [i.e., Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah]. This admittance was futile, as it did not allow them to enter Islām. As Allāh says:
وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ ۖ فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ
“And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say: “Allāh”. How then are they turned away (from the worship of Allāh, Who created them)?”
(Al-Zukhruf, 43:87)
وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ ۖ فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ
“If you were to ask them: “Who has created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon?” They will surely reply: “Allāh.” How then are they deviating (as polytheists and disbelievers)?”
(Al-ʿAnkabūt, 29:61)
وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّن نَّزَّلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ مِن بَعْدِ مَوْتِهَا لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ ۚ
“If you were to ask them: “Who sends down water (rain) from the sky, and gives life therewith to the earth after its death?” They will surely reply: “Allāh.””
(Al-ʿAnkabūt, 29:63)
قُلْ مَن يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ أَمَّن يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَمَن يُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَيُخْرِجُ الْمَيِّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ ۚ فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ ۚ فَقُلْ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ
“Say (O Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم)): “Who provides for you from the sky and from the earth? Or who owns hearing and sight? And who brings out the living from the dead and brings out the dead from the living? And who disposes of the affairs?” They will say: “Allāh.” Say: “Will you not then be afraid of Allāh’s Punishment (for setting up rivals in worship with Allāh)?””
(Yūnus, 10:31)
And many other verses that indicate quite clearly that the polytheists fully believed in the oneness of Allāh’s Lordship, but objected to oneness in His right to be worshipped. Additionally, they understood the actual meaning of this testification and that it stipulates worshipping none other than Allāh—the Most High, directing all forms of worship to Him alone. Herego, if the disbelievers of Quraysh are more knowledgeable regarding the meaning of this testification than the leaders of the Tablīghīin, then what goodness can one ever hope to achieve by attaching himself to such people who are ignorant of the fundamental principle upon which Islām is built which is ‘Lā ilāha illā Allāh’? So let the Muslim who is sincere in his desire for goodness be weary of them, or from ever joining their ranks. Let him warn others from them and from ever joining them.
Contradiction to the ‘Good Word’: Not Proclaiming the Testification of Faith as Legislated
Among their clear opposition to this ‘good word’ they espouse is the manner in which they make dhikr (i.e. stating the shahādah) which consists of a pause that disjoins its confirmationary and negationary declarations from one another.
They say: “Lā ilāha” six hundred times, then “illā Allāh” four hundred times.
This manner of proclaiming the shahādah represents a form of mockery directed at Allāh and the dhikr He has legislated. For it actually necessitates the occurrence of outright disbelief six hundred times. This is because the separation of negation from confirmation when saying ‘Lā ilāha illā Allāh’ by intentionally waiting a prolonged period of time between its first and second parts stipulates the complete negation of the right to be worshipped from Allāh six hundred consecutive times. This is manifest disbelief. Then, following this with the confirmatory part of the testification after completely disjoining it from the preceding negation is futile, representing a defamatory venality of Allāh’s remembrance, and a mockery of Him.
Also representative of their clear opposition to the good word is the manner in which they engage in remembrance using unlegislated invocations termed awrād. These include saying ‘illā Allāh’ four hundred times, just saying “Allāh, Allāh” repeating it six hundred times, and engaging in a dhikr they term ‘al-Anfās al-Qudusiyyah’ [or divine breaths] for ten minutes. This is achieved by them touching their tongues to the roofs of their mouths, then engaging in alleged remembrance by snorting out air through their noses in a sound that is meant to resemble “Allāh”. Such an action is not a legislated form of remembrance. Rather, it represents Shayṭān turning them into tools of playful, defamatory mockery.
As Shaykh al-Islām Abū al-ʿAbbās Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) said: “No remembrance that consists of simply saying the name of Allāh repeatedly has ever been legislated, under any circumstance. For there exists not a single shred of legislative evidence that would indicate such a remembrance is recommended”.3
Also among their clear opposition to this ‘good word’—and among the most objectionable forms of it—is them engaging in alleged remembrance by saying “Huwa, Huwa” (or Hu Hu Hu meaning Him, Him, Him) repeatedly instead of saying ‘Lā ilāha illā Allāh’. This is among the remembrances that have been inherited from the radical Sufis who have been misguided from the straight path. Simply saying this word repeatedly is a form of remembrance that was never legislated. Rather, it represents another form of mockery directed at Allāh—the Most High—and His remembrance; another manifestation of Shayṭān’s mockery of the Ṣuffiyyah and their Tablīghīin offshoot. To the extent that the Sufis will even claim that merely saying this word repeatedly is a remembrance of the most elevated, specialised servants. Again, this demonstrates their extreme misguidance and ignorance.
As Shaykh al-Islām (رحمه الله) said: “Whoever claims that this statement ‘Lā illāha illā Allāh’ is the remembrance of the commoners and rabble among the populace and that saying the single name (Allāh) or pronoun (Huwa) alone is a remembrance of the specialised or elevated class, then they are misguided, sorely mistaken”. Then he (رحمه الله) said: “As for simply saying the name [of Allāh] or its pronoun repeatedly, this does not represent a complete statement in and of itself, nor is it a meaningful sentence, nor does it inherently indicate any form of belief, disbelief, command or prohibition. Nor did any of the pious predecessors ever allude to such a form of remembrance, nor did the Messenger of Allāh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ever legislate such a thing. Nor does it cultivate within one’s heart any form of beneficial or fruitful knowledge or state. Rather, it only grants a musing of the subject being mentioned, devoid of any confirmation or negation that pertains to it. Contrary to this, the sharīʿah legislates remembrances that proffers standalone benefits in and of itself, not remembrances whose benefits are predicated on that which is external to it (i.e. subjective or abstract).”
He (رحمه الله) then said: “Some of those who have chosen to engage in such remembrances have fallen into various types of outright disbelief and apostasy, encouraging belief in ittiḥad [belief in the unification of the Creator and His creation].”
He also said: “Engaging in remembrance using only the name of Allāh or its pronoun is an action that is farther from the Sunnah and closer to being considered a complete innovation while also being from Shayṭān’s misguidance. As the one who says repeatedly: “O Huwa! O Huwa” or “Huwa, Huwa” or the likeness of such statements, the pronoun used here would only reference whatever the speaker is intending in his heart. This heart may be either misled or guided. As the author of ‘al-Fuṣūṣ’ even composed an entire book entitled ‘Kitāb al-Huwa’ [the book of Him]”. He then said: “Allāh has not commanded that His name be used in isolation as a remembrance, nor has He legislated any form of remembrance that consists of just a single name, devoid of anything else. This is because the mention of a single, isolated name itself does not indicate īmān. This is a matter that is fully agreed upon by all Muslims such that there is no act of worship or manner of addressing the people that consists merely of saying a name repeatedly.
To further clarify, all of the legislated remembrances that form a part of a Muslim’s ṣalāh, adhān, Ḥajj, or ʿĪd celebrations are in the form of complete sentences. Like the statements of the muʾadhin:
اللهُ أَكْبَرُ
“Allāh is the greatest”
أَشْهَدُ أَن لَّا إِلهَ إِلَّا الله،
“I testify that there is nothing worshipped in truth except for Allāh”
أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَّسُولُ اللهِ
“I testify that Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the Messenger of Allāh”
Or the statements of the praying person:
اللهُ أَكْبَرُ
“Allāh is the greatest”
سُبْحَانَ رَبِّيَ الْعَظِيم
“Glory be to my Lord—the Most Great”
سُبْحَانَ رَبِّيَ الأَعْلَى
“Glory be to my Lord—the Most High”
سَمِعَ اللهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَه
“Allāh hears those who praise Him”
رَبَّنَا وَلَكَ الْحَمْد
“Our Lord! To You belong all praise”
Or the statement of the pilgrim:
لَبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ
“I am coming in answer to You O Allāh”
And the likeness of such statements. All of the legislated forms of remembrance are in the form of complete sentences, not single names mentioned in isolation, or merely as a pronoun”.
He then said: “The intended, salient point being made here is that the remembrance of Allāh is done only by using complete sentences to remember Him. Such remembrance is a means towards the cultivating of goodness in one’s heart, allowing one to be deserving of reward and compensation, the attainment of closeness to Allāh, facilitating one knowing Him, loving and fearing Him with knowledge and the attainment of a variety of other elevated goals and lofty aspirations. As for merely saying a single name or pronoun repeatedly, it is completely baseless; much less being a form of remembrance only engaged in by the most special of servants or the greatest of them in knowledge. Rather, engaging in such a form of remembrance leads only to a litany of innovation and misguidance of various types. It is also a means through which one is made to conjure up and claim false, corrupt states the likes of which are espoused by the people of godlessness, apostasy, and ittiḥād [those who claim the unification of existence]”.4
He (رحمه الله) also said: “As for saying a name repeatedly or a pronoun as a form of remembrance, it is a practice that was adopted with fervour and eagerness by the misguided among the latter generations. They adopted it in emulation of a shaykh to whom they attached supremacy. For example, it was once narrated that al-Shulbī used to say: “Allāh, Allāh” repeatedly. When it was said to him: “Why do you not instead say: ‘Lā ilāha illā Allāh’?”, he replied: “I fear that I may die between the negation and confirmatory aspects of the complete statement”. This represents an error among the many errors of al-Shublī. It is also connected to the claimed state of possession he would experience. For it may be that a jinn was made to possess him, transporting him to al-Maristān where he shaved his beard. He has many matters the likeness of this regarding which he should not be emulated. Although others may have followed his example, exceeding the limits in their emulation of him, until they finally concluded that stating the name alone repeatedly is for the most special servants, and complete sentences are for the rabble. To the extent that some of them even claim that the statement ‘Lā illāha illa Allāh’ is for the believers but saying ‘Allāh’ alone is for the knowledgeable, and saying ‘Huwa’ is for those who have attained complete ascertainment. Additionally, some of them—either in their gatherings or when by themselves—will delve deeper by either simply saying the name or pronoun repeatedly, or saying “O Huwa” or ‘Lā Huwa, Lā Huwa’ ( “He does not exist, he does not exist)! Some authors of the Ṣufī way have even magnanimously praised this act, evidencing inspiration to support it at times, and their own opinions or false narrations at other times”.
He (رحمه الله) then said: “This form of remembrance has been incorporated by those who believe in a single existence [unification of the Creator and the created]. They say: “Lā Huwa illā Huwa” (“There is nothing except for Him”) allowing their hearts to emanate the notion of a single existence which was the madh`hab of Pharaoh, the Ismailis, and the atheistic Sufis from the latter generations. They mean by their saying: “Lā Huwa illā Huwa ” that there is no existence except for Him, that there is no such thing as creation, and that the Lord and the servant, the Creator and the creation is all but a single entity.
Among the reasons for such corrupt ideologies and creeds is complete abandonment of the sharīʿah and clear path with which the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was sent. For, indeed, innovation is considered the foundation for disbelief, the place in which it is consistently founded. Just as legislated practices from the Sunnah are the place in which one finds īmān most apparent, strengthened and powerful. As īmān increases with acts of obedience and depreciates by engagement in disobedience”.5
Conclusion
In consideration of the various forms of opposition to the ‘good word’ inherent in the practices adopted by the Tablīghīin, it is plainly evident to anyone with even an iota of intelligence and knowledge that they have not actually adopted this great principle except by claiming its wording [i.e. they claim to follow the ‘good word’ (shāhadah) but cannot even proclaim the entirety of the statement and what it negates]. Their stating of it is accompanied by complete ignorance of its meaning, behaving in a manner that is completely contrary to what it entails and necessitates from directing all forms of worship to Allāh alone and negating it from all others. Additionally, they refuse to acknowledge the explicit disbelief in Ṭāghūt which it also stipulates, while directing all forms of worship to Allāh alone.
As described, the tablīghīin must be considered among the furthest people from grasping the ‘good word’. Simply saying it is futile and claiming it as one of their fundamental principles is similarly useless insofar as they are completely ignorant of its meaning, instead behaving contrary to what it necessitates, while completely ignoring its greatest responsibility which is to explicitly state disbelief in al-Ṭāghūt. All of this in addition to the numerous major forms of shirk their leaders have engaged in.
Endnotes:
[1] Authentic: narrated by Muslim: 23.
[2] Weak: narrated by al-Tirmidhī and others. Graded weak by Shaykh al-Albānī in Dhāʿīf Sunan al-Tirmidhī: 409.
[3] Source: Majmūʿ al-Fatāwá 10:558.
[4] Source: Majmūʿ al-Fatāwá 10: 228-229, 231, and 233.
[5] Source: Majmūʿ Fatāwá 10:556-557, 565.
Source: Al-Qawl al-Balīgh 153-165
Translated by: Riyāḍ al-Kanadī